PDA

View Full Version : 1c about Firing Timings and Firing order, allied.



LeadSpitter_
04-22-2005, 12:23 AM
Oleg I dont want to start a browning m2 flame war but I'm posting this to you and the programers of the game, you do clearly have the recoil, dispurtion and firing order wrong of the browning m2 for wing mounted allied aircraft.

So for example we should have the recoil of 2xM2 brownings firing which you could increase the recoil to make it historically accurate which im guessing you had correct in earlier versions, You did make a big fuss over it being unaccurate where you decreased it in some of the later patches.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/p51dm2.gif

This is why we should have a much higher rate of fire along with hitting power from 2, 4, 6, & 8 M2 brownings significantly which we dont have in game.

We should have the constant recoil and dispursion of 2 brownings firing which was constant when firing from 1 trigger assembly.

Im sure your interested in making thing more realistic and your very interested in making things somewhat correct in this simulator.

Im sure if you look into the subject you will see, its also listed on the gunbay doors of allied aircraft seen here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/P51WingGunBay.jpg

I also wanted to know if you can change the brownings to fire from 1-2 fire buttons, just for the fact we can change to staggered convergence or maybe you can do this within the program to make it more realistic and fire from Button 1 only.

Thanks for your time if you read this.

faustnik
04-22-2005, 01:41 AM
Leadspitter,

Are you saying that a firing order problem is what causes the annoying side-to-side yawing of planes like the P-51 when firing?

PlaneEater
04-22-2005, 02:44 AM
That's one possible result.

It may also be causing excessive recoil jump as the guns all fire simultaneously, rather than 'streaming'.

Say a .50 recoiling generates a quarter-second, 100 pound impulse.

Before anyboy takes that 100 lb figure as real and gets their nose out of joint, I pulled that number out of my butt for the sake of the explination. I don't know what it actually is in pounds of force or Newtons

The way they seem to be firing now, they're either free-firing, meaning we're getting randomly and unevenly pummeled with 100 pound impulses, or they're all going off at once, and we're getting jarred every tenth of a second by a 600 pound impulse, followed by a pause.

With the proper firing sequence in place, it'll be a much smoother, nearly constant 200-pound push. An uninterupted push is much easier to counter when aiming than a rapidly cycling or random one.

Fennec_P
04-22-2005, 03:38 AM
That won't necessarily kill the yawing, though.

Even planes with centrally mounted guns have inexplicable yawing and pitching motions when the guns are fired. This 'feature' as a whole doesn't add up, and isn't a result of gun timings.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-22-2005, 08:08 AM
Even if it doesn't take care of the yawing it would still be nice to see the .50s fire in sequence rather than all at once.

Choctaw111
04-22-2005, 08:15 AM
Yes. The 50 cals all firing in unison is not only UNREALISTIC but also NOT HISTORICAL. It did not take much thought for someone to realize back in the day that for multitple gun AC staggering the firing times would in essence increase the rate of fire and increase the chances of a hit. I wish that we had this here...

LLv34_Stafroty
04-22-2005, 08:41 AM
it doesnt make rate of fire any better, in 10 secs , u still shoot same amount of bullets, no matter of timing. other issue is that when they are timed, its harder for enemy AC to go between rounds in other way around, u only hit bit when u hit while with not timed u hit more, but thats only case in minor stituations.

VW-IceFire
04-22-2005, 09:20 AM
I've heard about this detail but I didn't really fully understand it until now. This very interesting indeed.

Now...question. What about the .50cals on the P-40Field Mod or the Spitfire IXe and what about the .303cals on Hurricanes, Spitfires, and others. These seem to have the tracers going off in a staggered sort of way (maybe random?). Is that what the game is doing for those and not all .50cals?

What about the P-51D's which have two of the four guns (I think its the middle ones) firing in a staggered way (tracers anyways) while the others are linked (tracers).

Its all very inconsistent which says to me there are a couple of types of .50cals implemented...somehow.

p1ngu666
04-22-2005, 09:46 AM
it effects cannons too i think
buefighter for example, u fire all the 20mm's at the same time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

intreginly, last time i checked il2 fires its cannons at different rates, which yaws the plane about a fair bit.

staggered fire order would give greater hit chance, and reduce recoil.

i think the 303's have there own slightly different rates of fire, not sure.

TAGERT.
04-22-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Yes. The 50 cals all firing in unison is not only UNREALISTIC but also NOT HISTORICAL. It did not take much thought for someone to realize back in the day that for multitple gun AC staggering the firing times would in essence increase the rate of fire and increase the chances of a hit. I wish that we had this here... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ooooooooo is that what Lead is saying.. So, are you guys saying that currently all 3x0.50cals per wing fire at the same time? That is totally wrong!! There was no order of fire what so ever.. They were totally random.. Thus to simulate them all firing at once is way wrong.. Espically in light of the *seemingly* high amount of force Oleg attributes to them in making the plan YAW left and right imho. Carson spoke about this in his book and noted how you could not notice the guns causing YAW or reducing the speed of the plane. Not to mention firing them all at once really reduces your change of getting a hit with all bullets going down range side by side.. If they were staggered you would have a *stream* of bullets (like the I16 lazers) that would make you chance of getting a hit much higher!

If this is true, that Oleg is firing all 6 at once, than it should be changed imho!

Im sure he will use the excuse that he is doing this to reduce the NET LOAD though.. Imagine sending all that bullet info over the NET.. If you group them you only have to send one packet.. but if you randomnize them you would have to send 6 times what you sending now.. and 8 times on the P47. But, in light of the fact that there are other planes with as many if not more guns firing at higher ROF, like the I16.. So it is doable and thus not a valid excuse imho.

TAGERT.
04-22-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
it doesnt make rate of fire any better, in 10 secs , u still shoot same amount of bullets, no matter of timing. other issue is that when they are timed, its harder for enemy AC to go between rounds in other way around, u only hit bit when u hit while with not timed u hit more, but thats only case in minor stituations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, your not changing the ROF per gun, but the effective ROF is higher. And, yes the effect would be less when you get a hit because not all 6 are hitting at once.. But I would take the less YAW swaining and the higher chance of getting a hit over that anyday. This really should be changed to distribute the 50 cals evenly per wing as in Lead's drawing, where only 1 per wing fires. Statictally that is what you would get, the chance of all 6 (3 per wing) firining at the same time is very low.. ie the exception not the rule.

JtD
04-22-2005, 10:32 AM
What TAGERT. says...

The sequence of the guns is academic. The indvidual guns have individual characteristics and even if you start with a certain order of fire it will soon be random if you don't take any action to control it.

If there a higher quaility for the cover panel available or could you please type the important bits into text, I cannot read it.

Afaik the Russians did put sync gear into some of their aircraft, thus improving the guns efficiency. I know people often complain about the ShVAK's effiency, but I believe some of them forget they are usually hit by two at the same time into the same spot (La's).

BfHeFwMe
04-22-2005, 02:16 PM
If they didn't fire through the prop, they weren't syncronized, ROF for each gun depended on mechanical condition and maintance prep. A syncronised and set firing order on a Mustang is anything but realistic.

They have it pretty good now, each gun has it's own individual rate of fire, why you always have them run out of ammo at staggered times, especially noticable in Spitfires.

Funny thing is your asking for what used to be several patches ago. No need to step backwards.

Blackdog5555
04-22-2005, 02:56 PM
Leadspitter, are you saying that wing mounted BMG on the P51 were synchronised? My research shows only unsynched. I cant find any documents that there was a firing order. Yes you should have gun selection switch and should be able to stagger the convergence but I dont think synchronizing existed....for the wing mounted BMG..(yes, the tracers should not all come out at the same time..looks sucky)cheers

AlmightyTallest
04-22-2005, 03:03 PM
Sounds like a great idea, and this idea seems to come up over and over http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think it would help in that it would be more realistic to have unsynchronised wing mounted .50's with the gun shake reduced because the firing is staggered. Also, the other advantage is the ammo belt. One gun firing in this way may be shooting an API round, the gun next to it may be firing a tracer, and the other may be firing a pure incindiary round. This may improve on the damage model as different rounds with different effects strike home.

I'm all for it, and it may be the kind of thing that also helps with all aircraft guns in the sim. They could all be made to fire unsynched with different ammo types streaming downrange if they did so in the real plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2005, 05:16 PM
You guys are REALLY over the top on this, except Stafroty and some others like
BfHeFwMe... John Waters?

There is a triggering order for starting fire, then the guns let rip at what,
10+ shots per SECOND EACH?

Then there is the sim which uses sound and graphics to represent that using the
base code engine made for many fewer guns per plane. Also the tracers... it is
how they are able to make it go at all.

Who here really thinks that 6+ .50's firing full out, each and every impulse is
fed into the FM? There may be or have been a single force from each gun and the
old firing order was IIRC left to right at the speed of code, could have accounted
for the yaw especially of the P-47 or that could have been graphics and the yaw
was/is a programmed effect. Really shouldn't that be evened out by mass of plane,
airstream on the plane and speed of firing? Or is there some imbalance that the
force of fire causes tilt/yaw that Oleg and crew knows of and we don't?

The guns do add up to a force and vibration, real and modelled. It was what some
called excessive based on historic data ==including observations in air==, but that
was changed. I can't believe that anyone should ask for more, but I always KNEW I
would see the day!

p1ngu666
04-22-2005, 06:02 PM
guns, we are asking for it tobe more historic, and a plane can pass between the bullets of a .50cal ingame fairly often, to me atleast.

the guns probably had a delay on each gun, but fired at there own rates.

TAGERT.
04-22-2005, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
guns, we are asking for it tobe more historic, and a plane can pass between the bullets of a .50cal ingame fairly often, to me atleast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the guns probably had a delay on each gun, but fired at there own rates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know about dealy, but there defintally wasnt a mechancal synco mechinism like there is with guns that fire through the prop blades.

TAGERT.
04-22-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
If they didn't fire through the prop, they weren't syncronized, ROF for each gun depended on mechanical condition and maintance prep. A syncronised and set firing order on a Mustang is anything but realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
They have it pretty good now, each gun has it's own individual rate of fire, why you always have them run out of ammo at staggered times, especially noticable in Spitfires.

Funny thing is your asking for what used to be several patches ago. No need to step backwards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that what they are doing now? I didnt realise that! If so, that should do it, in that in RL that is about what you would get, each may start off at same time, but would quickly get out of sync due to slightly different ROF's per gun. Was it actully said that is what they are doing? Because I wouldnt put too much faith in the art showing one guns running out of ammo before another.. In that certain banks of guns had less ammo than others.. Now is you see that within said bank.. Than that is a pretty good justification. Eitherway thanks for the info!

LEXX_Luthor
04-22-2005, 06:49 PM
double post

LEXX_Luthor
04-22-2005, 06:50 PM
Wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Leadspitter posts contradiction. P~51 guns all fired together. See the Leadspitter's P~51 firing sequence below...

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Proof ~~> </span> http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

TAGERT.
04-22-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Leadspitter posts contradiction. P~51 guns all fired together. See the Leadspitter's P~51 firing sequence below...

_<span class="ev_code_yellow">Proof ~~> </span>_ http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

carguy_
04-22-2005, 07:51 PM
LOL yeah Leadspitter needs to change sequence of those christmas three lightshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW interesting thread.

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2005, 09:13 PM
Well I know about the gaps at least a while ago. Did a bunch of tests and played back
at 1/4 speed and the hits came in waves that yes a plane could fly through the gap if
it was quick about it. I makes some firing strategies harder or semi-unworking but it
also means that when you hit, your chances of devastation are much higher as the rounds
are grouped in those waves.

Really it may only be a product of the speed of my PC. Everything else has to run as
well as the guns and bullets and I don't know how they code that part, have you ever
heard a speech wave packet synched to video get delayed and all come out at once? Or
the sound and vid run fast till they catch up? Those are tasks, I think, and so may
be the shots so as many run when the time slice is given to the task, they all go.
Maybe. Possibly. I have been assured that the shots are not packeted, 1 calculated
and the rest counted as trailing or adjacent to it.

Blackdog5555
04-23-2005, 02:30 AM
Yes, I agree that attributing Yaw to unsynch firing of the 6 50 BMG is a bit wack. when the trigger is pulled you have about 70 rounds per second firing...35 rounds per sec per each side. I think ole leadspitter is over thinking this thing. What makes me think a bit is in some footage i have seen F4U firing and the tracer smoke would come off the wing in synchronised puffs. Like in the game. but all Gun camera footage shows very random tracer fire.

Jippo01
04-23-2005, 08:41 AM
This has to be the funniest thread I've read in a long time!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


-jippo

LeadSpitter_
04-23-2005, 09:32 AM
As for the unexplained yawing of all .50 cal wing mounted aircraft, the right browning is firing first, then 321 12X. Probally becuase of whines and complaints of the browning being accurate which is what in reality.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/yawing.jpg

For my signature I use to have them correct but it put the animated gif over the 30kb limit with 3 frames instead of 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways I hope oleg cuts us a break for a change and does the correct thing.

Daiichidoku
04-23-2005, 09:44 AM
I would welcome a historically correct NO tracer loadout....

some pilots had crew chiefs go with NO traceres until last few rounds, to let them know ammo limits being reached....

but this also lets enemy know the same thing

some went 100% NO tracer



if this was enable din the game, I would certainly take no tracer, and would prove quite nasty in a cockpit on game

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2005, 04:59 PM
Leasdpitter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For my signature I use to have them correct but it put the animated gif over the 30kb limit with 3 frames instead of 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways I hope oleg cuts us a break for a change and does the correct thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
mmm...could be Oleg went with firing sequence for much the same reason Leadspitter had to -- to save flight sim computer performance in this case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways I hope Leadspitter cuts us a break for a change and does the correct thing with his SiG.

LLv34_Stafroty
04-23-2005, 06:05 PM
seeing everything twice but. imagine LeadS if pony would have its guns bit different, like throwing *****s at 6 of enemy plane. maaan, what an lose of faec situation... :P

TAGERT.
04-23-2005, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Leasdpitter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For my signature I use to have them correct but it put the animated gif over the 30kb limit with 3 frames instead of 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways I hope oleg cuts us a break for a change and does the correct thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
mmm...could be Oleg went with firing sequence for much the same reason Leadspitter had to -- to save flight sim computer performance in this case. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyways I hope Leadspitter cuts us a break for a change and does the correct thing with his SiG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be a very good conclusion.. If we didnt have some russian planes that have higher ROF's and lazer like tracers.. Nice try though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
04-23-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


Now...question. What about the .50cals on the P-40Field Mod or the Spitfire IXe and what about the .303cals on Hurricanes, Spitfires, and others. These seem to have the tracers going off in a staggered sort of way (maybe random?). Is that what the game is doing for those and not all .50cals?

Its all very inconsistent which says to me there are a couple of types of .50cals implemented...somehow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting.

Maybe this finally explains why the P40 hits like a Mack truck and the Thunderbolt hits like a Moped.

http://www.rowanandmartinslaughin.com/wolfgang.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-24-2005, 02:03 AM
"Maybe this finally explains why the P40 hits like a Mack truck and the Thunderbolt hits like a Moped."

I don't know which game you play, but for me they hit about the same. (subjectively the effect of 1/3 more gnus is hard to see). This is for P47D versus P40M anyway.

I remember when the P-47 was first out in the game and people said that the guns were weak and the I-153 was immune to MG fire. My first trip online in the P-47 and I sawed the wing of an I-153!

Aaron_GT
04-24-2005, 02:05 AM
"That would be a very good conclusion.. If we didnt have some russian planes that have higher ROF's and lazer like tracers.. "

The guns do about the same damage (or did in AEP according to the tests that JtD did). It's hard to do totally scientific tests for damage, though, as there are so many variables.

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The guns do about the same damage (or did in AEP according to the tests that JtD did). It's hard to do totally scientific tests for damage, though, as there are so many variables. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice to know.. but my point is that Oleg did not limit the .50s tracers art due to CPU/Video load.. In that we have other planes in the game that have higher ROF with streams of tracers that far exceed what the .50s put out.

fherathras
04-24-2005, 12:02 PM
TAGERT`s right.

it is fullt ppossible to make the 50.`s fire unzycronised
just take a look at the "p-40 field-mod" it fires the heavy machine-guns in random order.

almost like a hurricane fiering 303`s

Covino
04-24-2005, 12:13 PM
I just took out the -51 and fired. I noticed no yawing and very little recoil. One of the most stable platforms in the game. Do you guys still play this game or just chat all day on the forums? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, all guns firing at the same time causes no yawing. A force on one side equals the force on the other and both occur at the same time.

Also, overall recoil should not be "just 2 MG's firing instead of six because of staggered firing." The rate of the forces acting is then increased by 3. So if you meant to say the recoil force should be like 2 MG's but firing 3 times as fast, then I would agree (and the end result would be almost the same as now).

Another thing is that I doubt any firing sequence is correct on any plane in the game. It's impossible to get correct data for the 120 some odd planes. Same situation with weapon jams. Why should P-51 get special treatment?

Viking-S
04-24-2005, 12:20 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/img_0134.jpg

I fail to find anything that supports your claim of synchronised guns in this picture.
As far as I know the guns where electrically fired in such a way that the already cocked gun received a electric signal to a solenoid that let the bolt spring forward to fire the round and then recoil back to extract the casing and then forward again to load a new round and etc. as long as the button is down and the solenoid receives current. No smart device or synchronising mechanism is monitoring the rate or order of fire. Hence if one gun clicks the others want be affected. And the rate of fire will be individually different due to manufactory tolerances and previous wear of the gun. Correct me if I€m wrong.

Viking

Aaron_GT
04-24-2005, 12:33 PM
"Nice to know.. but my point is that Oleg did not limit the .50s tracers art due to CPU/Video load.. In that we have other planes in the game that have higher ROF with streams of tracers that far exceed what the .50s put out. "

Who knows why that is. I doubt it is bias, more likely an oversight and changing has probably been given a low priority - it isn't a show-stopping bug or a wrong FM or anything.

VW-IceFire
04-24-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


Now...question. What about the .50cals on the P-40Field Mod or the Spitfire IXe and what about the .303cals on Hurricanes, Spitfires, and others. These seem to have the tracers going off in a staggered sort of way (maybe random?). Is that what the game is doing for those and not all .50cals?

Its all very inconsistent which says to me there are a couple of types of .50cals implemented...somehow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting.

Maybe this finally explains why the P40 hits like a Mack truck and the Thunderbolt hits like a Moped.

http://www.rowanandmartinslaughin.com/wolfgang.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep in mind that only the Field Mod version fires unsynced tracers...the P-40E and P-40M are just like the Hellcat, Corsair, and others.

The P-47 hits the hardest out of all of them...but the guns are mounted much further out. You really need to play with the gun convergence in the P-47 to get the right settings. Then you chew up your targets.

Aaron_GT
04-24-2005, 01:03 PM
"A force on one side equals the force on the other and both occur at the same time."

There might be some small tendency to yaw, if my memory of Eric Lathwaite demonstrations of gyroscopes serve me well. How significant it would be is another matter, given that the aerodynamics will tend to keep the plane straight.

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Who knows why that is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oleg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I doubt it is bias, more likely an oversight and changing has probably been given a low priority - it isn't a show-stopping bug or a wrong FM or anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And just to be crystal here, I never said it was a bias, orversight, or a show stopper. My only ponit is it has nothing to do with art load on the CPU/Video in that there are other planes in the game now that have higher ROF and tracer streams that are practiclly lazer like.

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 02:45 PM
@LeadSpitter

We talked on HL last night, and you told me about the firing order you observed.. where the #6 gun on the right wing fires, followed by the other five (1,2,3,4,5) guns all firing at the same time, about four or five times in a row

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/50CAL/1followedby5.jpg

then one where they seem to fire all 6 at the same time.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/50CAL/3by3.jpg

I did some test and your right about that.. not 100% sure if that 6th is just out of sync and after about the forth or fith time it get nearly insync with the other.. But it is defintally out of sync with the rest for the majority of the time.

To clear up a few things, they shouldnt be firing all at the same time, and I think you agree, just your inital post was a little confusing.

The disturbing part is that for the majority of the time, 5 guns fire all at once.. With 3 on the left and 2 on the right. Thus, foce wise you got 3 vs 2.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/50CAL/2by3top.jpg

They really should be more spread out than that, where the majority of the time they are all independed of each other. Seems the exception to the rule is the rule here.. Which is bad imho.

You also said last night that you *think* only the tracers are causing hits.. I dont think I can agree with that.. In my tests I see hits on a target (I park a P51 on the ground and put a mountain in front of it) inbetween the tracers.. So, Im pretty sure that is not a problem, but I only did a few tests for that. Hard to tell from the gun barrel flash in that they allways flash, even when the track file is PAUSED. And the fire like you sig does.. ALL AT ONCE.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/50CAL/allsixallways.jpg

What we dont know as of yet is *if* there are non-tracers firing in place of those missing tracer rounds.. But, in light of the YAW I would assume there is not, otherwise if all guns fired at the same time it would pretty much cancel out the YAW effect.. At least to the ponit that you wouldnt notice it. On that note, in Carsons book he noted that even on a real Mustang, where they all fire random of each other you wouldnt notice it because the force is so small compared to the momentum of the plane in flight.

You as a pilot would feel the SHAKE/VIBRATION.. but wouldnt experance any YAW.. None visiblly noticable anyways.. Which makes me think something is modled wrong in the sim.. In that, when you loose a gun on one side due to damage.. It really causes alot of YAW in the GAME.

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 02:53 PM
Here is my setup if your interested

[MAIN]
MAP CoralSea/Online_load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[NStationary]
0_Static ships.Ship$RwySteel 1 25102.21 20000.34 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
[Buildings]
0_bld House$CrimeaRock1 1 25026.54 20054.93 400.00
[BornPlace]
1 3000 25102 20000
[BornPlace0]
P-51D-20NA
[StaticCamera]
24846 20003 100
[Bridge]
[House]

p1ngu666
04-24-2005, 03:17 PM
most of the guns fire as a group like the above pics. beufighters cannons come to mind.

so if it seems they all fired at once (irl) at the start, but would fire at there own rates, diveraging rate of fire would mean the tracers would spread out, and not be all at once. so next time u press trigger, its random.

i also doubt the belts all start with say tracer first EVERY time for example, so they would be slightly different, from the start anyways. eg gun 1 has tracer -ball-blah-blah, gun 2 has -blah-tracer-ball-blah for example, as the first bullets in the belt

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
most of the guns fire as a group like the above pics. beufighters cannons come to mind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, most have some sort of syncro requirment to fire through the prop.. Beufighter excluded.. One of the benifits of having them fire non-syncro is that you get a nearly back to back STREAM of bullets (statistically) that makes it much easier to walk your shots onto the target. Making them fire all at once kind of takes away that benifet.. On the flip side when you do get a hit, it is a multi hit.. But, in light of the fact that the bullets dont stick togther, as shown in the head on shots, your not hitting one spot but a general area. Thus, I would rater have it where they are more spead out as in RL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so it seems they all fired at once at the start, but would fire at there own rates, diveraging rate of fire would mean the tracers would spread out, and not be all at once. so next time u press trigger, its random. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.. the group of 5 allways fire all at once.. Only the #6 seems to be random

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i also doubt the belts all start with say tracer first EVERY time for example, so they would be slightly different, from the start anyways <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends on your armor guy... Pilots could tell them what kind of mix they wanted.. Carson said they didnt use any tracers in that thier tragectorys were not the same as the real bullets anyways.. They just watched for the hit sparkels form the real bullets strikes and then walk them onto the spot they wanted.. Which is why the real life random is more of a preference in real life... and in the game too imho

Aaron_GT
04-24-2005, 03:59 PM
"We talked on HL last night, and you told me about the firing order you observed.. where the #6 gun on the right wing fires, followed by the other five (1,2,3,4,5) guns all firing at the same time, about four or five times in a row
"

Is this true of the bullets, or just the tracers.

Given the ROF of the guns it is just about possible for a plane to go between the salvos of shots, if not entirely likely (and if they catch a salvo then it does more damage). If they are firing in salvos it is likely a way of reducing CPU load, as is the prop synchro gun effect (bullets are fired as if not synched but just do a bit less damage to take into account)

P.S. The bias thing wasn't aimed at you - it is just that if anything isn't right about a plane the B word comes into play it seems!

Blackdog5555
04-24-2005, 04:16 PM
I read that one reason guns wre removed from the wings of the P39 was because of maneuvering problems when firing when turning. I guess wing shake and deformation from the force of firing caused unpleasant handling.. never saw the word "yaw" used to describe the phenom. But all 6 tracers going off teh same time just isnt right...Not that big a deal.

p1ngu666
04-24-2005, 04:33 PM
i missed a "if", my bad
*edits*

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Is this true of the bullets, or just the tracers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>unknown at this time.. current level of testing is for tracer only. As I alluded to in my last post, we dont know if there are bullets firing in place of the missing tracers. Thus, would take more detailed testing to prove that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Given the ROF of the guns it is just about possible for a plane to go between the salvos of shots, if not entirely likely <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
(and if they catch a salvo then it does more damage). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. I noticed that the bullets start to diverge from each other the farther they travel.. As if the 50s are missallined.. Which is how it would have been in RL imho.. But, in light of that you may or may not do more damage, in that they may or may not all hit the same point. In light of that, I would perfer the random fire over all at once. PS that divergance is independed of the convergance

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If they are firing in salvos it is likely a way of reducing CPU load, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree, for two reason, one, why one firing all by itself, and two.. As I have said about ten times now, there are other plane in this very game that have higher ROF with a stream of tracers that look like lazers in comparsion to the 50 cal tracers. Thus I dont buy the art argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
as is the prop synchro gun effect (bullets are fired as if not synched but just do a bit less damage to take into account) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger was talking about RL there not the sim, Im pretty sure they are not simulating the prop sync and just fixing the ROF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
P.S. The bias thing wasn't aimed at you - it is just that if anything isn't right about a plane the B word comes into play it seems! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, just wanted to point otu that I wasnt the first one to use the B word! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I read that one reason guns wre removed from the wings of the P39 was because of maneuvering problems when firing when turning. I guess wing shake and deformation from the force of firing caused unpleasant handling.. never saw the word "yaw" used to describe the phenom. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gun pods on the wings or internal?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
But all 6 tracers going off teh same time just isnt right... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Not that big a deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. maybe not

Covino
04-24-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
What we dont know as of yet is *if* there are non-tracers firing in place of those missing tracer rounds.. But, in light of the YAW I would assume there is not <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False assumption. I just tested it and yes the #6 tracer sometimes does not match up to the other guns and this is probably due to a looping technique used in the code. However there is a always non-tracer round in its place.
You can easily test this youself. Start a quick mission, slow it down to 1/4 time, and shoot single bursts at the water until you get up to a burst with only 5 tracers. Then follow these 5 tracers into the water, and you'll see that 6 splashes occur at the same time when they hit.

You could also have easily inferred this because all the muzzle flashes are synchronized perfecty so the bullets coming out must be synchronized regardless of where the tracers are.

p1ngu666
04-24-2005, 06:00 PM
well, in terms of the bandwidth thing
hurri with 12guns has random bullets or a mixed stream.

12x20 (rof of 303) =240 rounds per second

thats the highest rof for a plane in FB i think, in terms of rounds fired, not weight or power of fire.

8x 50 of jug, at 13rounds a sec is 104

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covino:
False assumption. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, maybe not

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covino:
I just tested it and yes the #6 tracer sometimes does not match up to the other guns <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sometimes, most of the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covino:
and this is probably due to a looping technique used in the code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could be.. could be something else, but your assumption is as good as mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covino:
However there is a always non-tracer round in its place. You can easily test this youself. Start a quick mission, slow it down to 1/4 time, and shoot single bursts at the water until you get up to a burst with only 5 tracers. Then follow these 5 tracers into the water, and you'll see that 6 splashes occur at the same time when they hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill try that, LeadSpitter said he did a simular test and didnt see them.. So, I guess Ill have to do a more detailed test to convince myself. On that note, I was not worried too much about the 5 as I am about the 1! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covino:
You could also have easily inferred this because all the muzzle flashes are synchronized perfecty so the bullets coming out must be synchronized regardless of where the tracers are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You could also easily inferred that the muzzle flashes are bogis by pausing the playback and noting they keep firing, thus have nothing to do with the actual bullet leaving the barrel.. As I noted in my last post.

All in all I was not too worried about the bullets not being there.. Lead said he had a test that showed there were nthing but the tracers.. But in my limited test I saw hits inbetween tracer rounds.. What I dont like is they all fire at once.. They should be more random.. Which would give you a beter over all ROF.. Thus a better chance of a hit. Something does not add up.. Too much force seems to be attributed to the recoil, or not enough attributed to the aircrats momentum.. In that when you loose a gun to damage, you *see* alot of YAW. In light of what Carson said, this does not *feel* right.. And, it wouldnt be such a neative if they all fired at different times.. as they did in RL

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, in terms of the bandwidth thing
hurri with 12guns has random bullets or a mixed stream.

12x20 (rof of 303) =240 rounds per second

thats the highest rof for a plane in FB i think, in terms of rounds fired, not weight or power of fire.

8x 50 of jug, at 13rounds a sec is 104 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Thus, as far as net bandwitch goes.. if it can handle the hurri's 12 it could handle random firing of the P51's 6. As for art, if it can handle the I16 lazers it could handle the P51's radnom tracers.

Copperhead310th
04-24-2005, 08:36 PM
tagert could you run that same test for the P-47 please. i'm curoius now just to see what it turns up.

TAGERT.
04-24-2005, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
tagert could you run that same test for the P-47 please. i'm curoius now just to see what it turns up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im planning on it.. but I wont be able to get to it until next weekend.. In the mean time you could copy that mission I posted above and simply swap out the 51 for a 47.. But I need to come up with a better target to see the non tracers.. I like Covino's idea of strafing the water.. I would just like to come up with a fixed base method if I can.. I like the Test Runways because your plane is CHOCK BLOCKED and can not move with makes for a very stable test patteren on the side of the mountain.. Which if I remember right, was a problem in the old gun tests in that the plane moved around a bit.. This setup is just like the the real gun convergance tests they did in rl except that the tail is not raised up.. But if you can hand a target up high, it dont mater.. Which is what I did in that mission.. I used the side of the mountain.. But, it is hard to see the non tracers hits.. water or the ground is teh best so far.. The real trick is record a track file.. then during play back slow it down to 1/4 speed then you can see the tracers

Aaron_GT
04-25-2005, 01:31 PM
"Which is how it would have been in RL imho.. But, in light of that you may or may not do more damage, in that they may or may not all hit the same point."

Well there will naturally be some divergence as there is effectively a cone of fire from each gun. If the convergence is at, say, 400 yards then you'll get a shotgun effect. If you set convergence to 150 yards then the fire is pretty concentrated.

"Disagree, for two reason, one, why one firing all by itself, and two.. As I have said about ten times now, there are other plane in this very game that have higher ROF with a stream of tracers that look like lazers in comparsion to the 50 cal tracers. Thus I dont buy the art argument."

I don't get the laser thing at all as I don't see this presumed laserness in the game at all.

It is hard to tell if other planes fire in salvos or not. All we can see is that the tracers occur at different times, but the rounds themselves may be firing at the same time, but with different tracer interleaves.

The reason I suspect that planes probably do fire in salvos is that it simplifies either the number of counters needed for the physics loop (one per gun with 40 AI planes in the sky would be a nightmare) or a reduction in the branching of the physics loop meaning less branching for the CPU to handle, less branch mispredtion, etc., and thus better performance. I.e. you process all guns of a particular type being deployed on the battlefield at the same time, meaning one branch to that routine rather than branching all over the place, or counters and callbacks all over the place.

TAGERT.
04-27-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Which is how it would have been in RL imho.. But, in light of that you may or may not do more damage, in that they may or may not all hit the same point."

Well there will naturally be some divergence as there is effectively a cone of fire from each gun. Hence my statement of "Which is how it would have been in RL imho"


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If the convergence is at, say, 400 yards then you'll get a shotgun effect. If you set convergence to 150 yards then the fire is pretty concentrated. Is what Im saying


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Disagree, for two reason, one, why one firing all by itself, and two.. As I have said about ten times now, there are other plane in this very game that have higher ROF with a stream of tracers that look like lazers in comparsion to the 50 cal tracers. Thus I dont buy the art argument."

I don't get the laser thing at all as I don't see this presumed laserness in the game at all. Than you have not tried flying some of the early Russian planes.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It is hard to tell if other planes fire in salvos or not. All we can see is that the tracers occur at different times, but the rounds themselves may be firing at the same time, but with different tracer interleaves. Not srue about all planes, but, the P51's tracers allways have at least 5 that fire in salvos.. Some say they see the sixth when shooting water, some say they dont.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The reason I suspect that planes probably do fire in salvos is that it simplifies either the number of counters needed for the physics loop (one per gun with 40 AI planes in the sky would be a nightmare) You dont need a counter per gun, just one.. Where it is used to determine the time between firing of the next.. And make that random with some range relitive to the TOTAL ROF.. The some sequence/case statment that keeps track of which fired last.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
or a reduction in the branching of the physics loop meaning less branching for the CPU to handle, less branch mispredtion, etc., and thus better performance. I.e. you process all guns of a particular type being deployed on the battlefield at the same time, meaning one branch to that routine rather than branching all over the place, or counters and callbacks all over the place. Which would be a good argument.. IF there were NOT other planes in this very game that have higher ROF with a stream of tracers that look like lazers in comparsion to the 50 cal tracers.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2005, 09:16 AM
You might as well say just what "looks like lazers" means since this is becoming
a merry go round.

TAGERT.
04-27-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You might as well say just what "looks like lazers" means since this is becoming
a merry go round. Thanks Dad! Im sure there is even a 3rd way to say it.. But no mater how many ways you say it.. If someone want to ignor it they will find a way.

faustnik
04-27-2005, 10:49 AM
I was doing some testing last night, not on this exact issue, but, relative damage comparison of the .50 M2 and the UBS. The UBS does more damage even though the 2 weapons are similar. I'll try to get good ntracks and still in arcade mode and attempt to quantify the differences. Initial tests indicate that the Mg131 and M2 are very similar but, the UBS is significantly more powerful.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2005, 08:59 PM
Can I assume by "looks like lazers" that you mean that there are no gaps lengthwise
in the visible tracer stream?

TAGERT.
04-27-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Can I assume by "looks like lazers" that you mean that there are no gaps lengthwise
in the visible tracer stream? You can assume anything you want.. Or you can play a game called IL2-PF and note the green tracers on early Russian aircraft and others. Or go watch Star Wars, or some other hollywood interptation of what a lazer looks like.. Just dont go look at THEL's lazer.. First off you wont see it with the nakid eye.

TAGERT.
04-27-2005, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I was doing some testing last night, not on this exact issue, but, relative damage comparison of the .50 M2 and the UBS. The UBS does more damage even though the 2 weapons are similar. I'll try to get good ntracks and still in arcade mode and attempt to quantify the differences. Initial tests indicate that the Mg131 and M2 are very similar but, the UBS is significantly more powerful. I was actully trying to come up with a good test to try and quantify that.. I posted a mission on the previous page.. Plane on a test runway, so it aint going to move.. I have a mountain in front of it for the guns to hit.. I would like to replace that mountian with something that actually take damage and will eventually be destroyed.. At which point you could use the same test set up and just replace he plane.. Then fire and see how many seconds it takes to blow that somtthing up.. Not perfect, but better than staifing something in that by being in a fixed position with a fixed distance from the tgt you remove alot of the what if variables.. not all.. but alot

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:42 PM
well, the green 7mm russian things are rather odd.
try a il2, fire mg only, and u will probably see them wave up and down, they do curve too.

UBS should be better than m2, but dont know by how much, but yes they are really effective ingame. also very flat trajectory,only bad thing bout it is white tracer often hard to see for me, and lack of ammo.

if p47 had ubs's, id make a skin with some amusing reference to bukkake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

wonder if that will get me a free vacation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I was doing some testing last night, not on this exact issue, but, relative damage comparison of the .50 M2 and the UBS. The UBS does more damage even though the 2 weapons are similar. I'll try to get good ntracks and still in arcade mode and attempt to quantify the differences. Initial tests indicate that the Mg131 and M2 are very similar but, the UBS is significantly more powerful. I was actully trying to come up with a good test to try and quantify that.. I posted a mission on the previous page.. Plane on a test runway, so it aint going to move.. I have a mountain in front of it for the guns to hit.. I would like to replace that mountian with something that actually take damage and will eventually be destroyed.. At which point you could use the same test set up and just replace he plane.. Then fire and see how many seconds it takes to blow that somtthing up.. Not perfect, but better than staifing something in that by being in a fixed position with a fixed distance from the tgt you remove alot of the what if variables.. not all.. but alot </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

use a bomber, test runway and have someone join u and record track. tracers often do odd things, like when me and fausnik shot at the stone engine in 190A, he thought i was shooting his wingtip. later we swapped and i saw the same, but bullets where really hitting engine.

user STAT also works online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
04-28-2005, 09:51 AM
I did more testing last night and was a little surprised that the M2 and UBS were not as far apart as I thought. The UBS is probably 10-20% more powerful which is possible due to its heavier projectile (UBS-52g / M2 - 43.3g). I think the difference might be in power over range.

BigganD
04-28-2005, 10:39 AM
Does 50cal looks like laserbeams :P

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2005, 10:49 AM
Yeah, a bullet that drops perhaps 2 meters or less in 400 meters range, the trail of
that shouldn't look straight from outside?

That is about -any- MG in the game BTW.

You want to see big drop curve, it happens at extreme range.
1 second travel, 9.8 meters drop. Figure how far the shot goes in 1 second.

Drop through sight picture doesn't account for range but is affected by vertical
position of gun and therefore crossing of projectile with sight line.

TAGERT.
04-28-2005, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
use a bomber, test runway
That would work for P38s and P39s.. but unless I put the B17 1ft away the P51 and the rest of the tail draggers will shoot right over the top of it.. So, here is what Im thinking.. find a hill.. one of the new JAPAN maps has a good one.. put a TGT up on the hill and than place a test runway down the hill a little.. prob is some plenes will have differnt drop.. or should have.. So not a perfect test to comp weapons.. If I could only place a tgt up off the ground like you can the new smoke and lights.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and have someone join u and record track. Enh, for what I have planed I dont really need a 2nd person


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tracers often do odd things, like when me and fausnik shot at the stone engine in 190A, he thought i was shooting his wingtip. later we swapped and i saw the same, but bullets where really hitting engine. Huh.. that is strange


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
user STAT also works online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif True.

WWMaxGunz
04-29-2005, 12:57 AM
Can you set a plane on top of one of the big walls?

Fehler
04-29-2005, 01:05 AM
tagert, in the original 151/20 thread that uncovered the missing MG rounds, someone put a plane on an aircraft carrier which gave him the elevation to shoot at it to test damage. You could play around with that. It seemed to work well.

TAGERT.
04-29-2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
tagert, in the original 151/20 thread that uncovered the missing MG rounds, someone put a plane on an aircraft carrier which gave him the elevation to shoot at it to test damage. You could play around with that. It seemed to work well. Hmmmm, that might work.. you would only be able to shoot at some of the plane.. But that is better than nothing! Only prob is if you get a CV too close to a test runway, it thinks switches your spawn point from the test ruway to the CV. Thanks for the head up! That is a good idea!

p1ngu666
04-29-2005, 09:31 AM
just place several buliding by test runway, taxi up, chock up and test.

tagart i meant using il2 rear gunner and b25 gunners to test stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-29-2005, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just place several buliding by test runway, taxi up, chock up and test. Not good enough.. In that once you move (i.e. taxi) you change the test set up.. I want a test that will be nearly the same for each.. same distance/range etc that and building are hard to judge damage on.. thier DM's are not as complax as a B17's.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagart i meant using il2 rear gunner and b25 gunners to test stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.. Im trying to figure out what is going on with the P51 FIRING ORDER.. Note the title of the topic.. Once that is done I hope to test other planes with 50cals.. And in doing so come up with a test that will be useful in gauaging the destructive power of any and all planes.. Where everthing in the test is the same except for the plane.. Same distance to target, same convergance, etc.. It is a goal I probally wont reach in that something as simple as the rake of the plane sitting on the ruway can effect the test setup.. I wish I could figure out a way to simply lift the tail of the plane to make it fire level at a target.. Much like they did in RL.

LimaZulu
04-29-2005, 02:44 PM
Tagert, check yer PMs bud

LZ

Copperhead310th
04-29-2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yeah, a bullet that drops perhaps 2 meters or less in 400 meters range, the trail of
that shouldn't look straight from outside?

That is about -any- MG in the game BTW.

You want to see big drop curve, it happens at extreme range.
1 second travel, 9.8 meters drop. Figure how far the shot goes in 1 second.

Drop through sight picture doesn't account for range but is affected by vertical
position of gun and therefore crossing of projectile with sight line.

where's that pic gibbage posted of the night time boresighting of the P-38?

yes .50's should look like lazer beems. at least they did in that photo.

TAGERT.
04-29-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
where's that pic gibbage posted of the night time boresighting of the P-38?

yes .50's should look like lazer beems. at least they did in that photo. Well.. dont let the shutter speed of a camera fool you.. lazer like in thier straight tragectorys.. but not in thier length.. those pics of the night fire P38 show very long solid lazer like traces.. they dont look like that in rl.. that was due to the camera shutter speed.

Simmer2005
04-30-2005, 01:22 PM
What a goofy thread. Back to Leadsplitter, yes the guns on the 51 did fire in the way you described, both inside together, then middle together, then outside together. Or vice versa. I know that they did not fire all at once but just do not have the proof off hand. So falme away. they fired in pairs one right after the other.

TAGERT.
04-30-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Simmer2005:
What a goofy thread. Agreed 100%.. Once you showed up


Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Back to Leadsplitter, yes the guns on the 51 did fire in the way you described, both inside together, then middle together, then outside together. Or vice versa. I know that they did not fire all at once but just do not have the proof off hand. So falme away. they fired in pairs one right after the other. As far as I know, and from what Col Carson said, and from looking at the wings themselfs there was no hardware that syconised the firing of the 50s from the left to the right side, let alone per side and I do recall something being said to that in the book the mighty eigth.. But before I waist any time on your silly A looking for it let me know if that will be enough proof for you?

Charos
04-30-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
tagert, in the original 151/20 thread that uncovered the missing MG rounds, someone put a plane on an aircraft carrier which gave him the elevation to shoot at it to test damage. You could play around with that. It seemed to work well.

That would be Me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


For best results (worked well for the BF109) You have to use the Carrier with the Highest Deck for the Target plane "IJNAkagiCV" and use a low Deck carrier for the Test plane, I used the "USSKitkunBayCVE71".

I was able to test the MG151/20 against IL2 Armour as well as tail sections etc.

Happy Testing.

Simmer2005
04-30-2005, 07:02 PM
Ahhhh, Tagert,
Should have known you to be the one to start the expertise thing right away. You seem to be an expert on everything. (But we will let you keep thinking that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif)

TAGERT.
04-30-2005, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Ahhhh, Tagert,
Should have known you to be the one to start the expertise thing right away. You seem to be an expert on everything. (But we will let you keep thinking that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif) That really sounds funny comming from the *self proclaimed* expert on how the .50 cals in seperate wings fire in *sync* with each other... Only thing funnier than that is you belive it to be true!

Choctaw111
05-01-2005, 06:39 AM
It is kind of funny listening to you guys volley back and forth. I have extensive knowledge of the Ma Deuce, probably more than anyone in these forums, but as much as I know about the M2 I know nothing about how the 50's fired in each wing because I have never seen it first hand. Whether they fire in sync or the "ripple" fire I have no idea. I am assuming that anyone who claims to know about this for sure has obviously had first hand experience with these Aircraft and firing the guns. If I were a Mustang or T-bolt pilot then I could come in here and tell all of you a thing or two but since I have not, the only information I have on this is what I have read or even seen in old combat film. These are the people that say "yes, they did not fire in sync because I saw it on TV", or "They had a ripple fire because I read it in a book." LETS FIND A REAL MUSTANG OR T-BOLT PILOT AND ASK HIM!! I have met several over the years but I never thought to ask them this question about the sync or ripple fire. I wish I had just to resolve this issue. Anyway lets get the answer from a real WW2 fighter pilot and be done with it.

OldMan____
05-01-2005, 07:47 AM
All weapons of same type on all planes fire sync together in SIM. .50 is no exception. And net issies ARE a very very good excuse, this sollution is applied to all planes so it is fair. Not 100% realistic but is the kind of compromisse we NEED to leran to accept!


Also simmulation is made in discreete simmualation techniques.. ntoa continuoues integration. So there is NO DIFFERENCE if they fire one each time or all at same time as long as all of them fire inside SAME TIME FRAME from simmulation. The collision code that 99.99% of games use would give a hit or a not hit exactly same way in both cases.


Unfortunately I do not know how fast is time frame simmulation in this game.

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
It is kind of funny listening to you guys volley back and forth. I have extensive knowledge of the Ma Deuce, probably more than anyone in these forums, but as much as I know about the M2 I know nothing about how the 50's fired in each wing because I have never seen it first hand. Whether they fire in sync or the "ripple" fire I have no idea. I am assuming that anyone who claims to know about this for sure has obviously had first hand experience with these Aircraft and firing the guns. If I were a Mustang or T-bolt pilot then I could come in here and tell all of you a thing or two but since I have not, the only information I have on this is what I have read or even seen in old combat film. These are the people that say "yes, they did not fire in sync because I saw it on TV", or "They had a ripple fire because I read it in a book." LETS FIND A REAL MUSTANG OR T-BOLT PILOT AND ASK HIM!! I have met several over the years but I never thought to ask them this question about the sync or ripple fire. I wish I had just to resolve this issue. Anyway lets get the answer from a real WW2 fighter pilot and be done with it. Well just to be clear, not asking you to take my word for it.. As I pointed out in my last post, Col Carson talk about this


Col Leonard "Kit" Carson from his book PURSUE & DESTROY pg 73:
Incidentally, firing the guns did not noticeably slow the airplane down; the velocity loss was less than one mile per hr. What the pilot felt was the vibration of the six guns recoiling. When worked out, a P-51 weighing 9,000lbs. and going 300mph. (440tf. per second) had a kinetic energy of 27 million ft. pounds. That of all six guns firing simultaneously (actually, they don't; they fire at random with respect to each other, but for our purposes, let's lump their kinetic energy together) is about 75 thousand pounds. Thus the speed differentiation is negligible.
Does that meet your requirment of asking a real mustang pilot? And therefore resolve this issue? If not, then let me know, because as I ALSO ponited out in my last thread I recall the book the might 8th addressing this issue.. But before I did that I *asked* if it would be worth my time to look up. Now Im *asking* you. Because if text is not good enough for you.. and you require something verbal for your ears to hear.. because you don't trust your eyes.. Well than you better hurry up because there are less and less WWII pilots every day. Those guys are getting older every day.

PS As for *funny* ha ha.. Want to know what I find funny? Someone who claims to know so much about the Ma Deuce.. didn't notice that it didn't have any mechanical sync mechanism build into it. Why? Because it was not initially intended for flight.. It was a ground weapon that turned out to be good enough for flight. Simple.

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
All weapons of same type on all planes fire sync together in SIM. .50 is no exception. Seems to be the case.


Originally posted by OldMan____:
And net issies ARE a very very good excuse, Excuse being the key word


Originally posted by OldMan____:
this sollution is applied to all planes so it is fair. Not 100% realistic but is the kind of compromisse we NEED to leran to accept! Also simmulation is made in discreete simmualation techniques.. ntoa continuoues integration. So there is NO DIFFERENCE if they fire one each time or all at same time as long as all of them fire inside SAME TIME FRAME from simmulation. The collision code that 99.99% of games use would give a hit or a not hit exactly same way in both cases. Consider this.. we have some planes like the early russian plans with much higher ROF than the .50's. If the net code and discreete timming can handle them, then they could handly lower ROF's guns that dont fire in sync.


Originally posted by OldMan____:
Unfortunately I do not know how fast is time frame simmulation in this game. Probally only Oleg does, but you are 100% correct that it is descreete.

Choctaw111
05-01-2005, 01:13 PM
That book you were talking about Tagert is a great resource and therefore is credible. If a real pilot wrote it then of coarse that is the way things were. Having multiple guns of the same caliber, like the Mustangs and T-Bolts, they all fired at their maximum rate of fire with no limitations by governors or syncronizers. Each guns max ROF would be a little different so you would not get that syncronized effect. I am glad that you posted a reference to that book by "Kit" Carson. Now the debate is settled and we can all sleep better tonight.

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
That book you were talking about Tagert is a great resource and therefore is credible. Agreed 100% Carson is a great source, because he went on to become an engineer after the war and work in the aerospace field. Thus he not only has experance, but can explain it too


Originally posted by Choctaw111:
If a real pilot wrote it then of coarse that is the way things were. Sometimes.. Alot of pilots that didnt go on to become engineers dont fully understand the sceintific method for proving things.. Let alone understand the how and why somethings worked. Which in turn means those types tend to leave out some important info when describing thier adventures


Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Having multiple guns of the same caliber, like the Mustangs and T-Bolts, they all fired at their maximum rate of fire with no limitations by governors or syncronizers. Each guns max ROF would be a little different so you would not get that syncronized effect. Exactally


Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I am glad that you posted a reference to that book by "Kit" Carson. Now the debate is settled and we can all sleep better tonight. Agreed imho.

I wonder if I should PM Simmer2005 and let him know.. In that I have not seen him post in this thread latly.. I would hate to see him go off with the wrong info and make a fool of himself in the future. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fordfan25
05-01-2005, 03:21 PM
i dont know any thing realy about it but from all the videos iv seen on TV it looks like the .50s are fireing in a random manner. it does not look like there going at the same time like in this game. weather thats the case i dont know.

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
i dont know any thing realy about it but from all the videos iv seen on TV it looks like the .50s are fireing in a random manner. it does not look like there going at the same time like in this game. weather thats the case i dont know. For once film does it justice.. but keep in mind that with film.. it can be deciving.. the shutter rate relitive to what you filming can make for very different results.

Aaron_GT
05-01-2005, 04:39 PM
Excuse being the key word

As I said before there are reasons with respect to CPU utilisation, especially branch prediction, let alone code complexity, which would make having the guns firing simultaneously a resonable simplification.

Now I am guessing how the sim is implemented here...

The physics model most likely runs as a real time loop with some events happening in sequence, others being triggered by timers. If you have every gun firing independently with 40 planes, average 4 guns each (109s versus P51s) then that is 160 timers for the guns alone firing off events. Branch prediction would be a nightmare and it would eat more CPU. Current CPUs might well be able to handle it but 5 years ago - probably not. Whether the salvos are done per plane or per gun type across all planes that might happen to be firing I don't know. I am not sure how you would construct a test for this.

By firing guns of the same type as a salvo you lose something in the fidelity of the sim relative to reality in that it is sometimes theoretically possible for a plane to sneak between the bullets (1 gun does allow enough space as I mentioned during the long 50 cal versus cannon debate) at the gain of being able to support more planes in the air.

It might all change for BoB. It might be possible to change it with the current engine, but unless it is totally broke, don't fix it!

(P.S. I suspect guns with very low ROF would need to have separate timers per plane, not shared with all guns of that type on all planes as below 600 or so rpm you wouldn't want to wait an average of 1/2*60/rpm seconds for the first round to fire.)

Aaron_GT
05-01-2005, 04:43 PM
A question to ask is:

Would there be any military advantage in having ripple fire, or guns synched with delay in any way, over and above just letting each gun fire at its own rate. The latter is simpler so if there isn't any clear advantage in forcing a particular firing order it is unlikely that the USAAF would have deliberately complicated the firing systems and thus increased the chances of failure.

Now there is always a chance that the guns fired in sequence initially (first round in a burst) simply due to some subtlety the way the firing was initiated and that this was simply an accidental consequence of this.

p1ngu666
05-01-2005, 07:03 PM
well, either ripple or random will give you a better chance of a hit, which it was was all about for most pilots.

also the 50cals where random alwhile ago, ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
As I said before there are reasons with respect to CPU utilisation, As I said before there are planes with higher ROF than the 50s, thus if the netcode can handle those firining in sync, they should be able to handle the 50s at random.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
especially branch prediction, Which is important in AI but not timmers.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
let alone code complexity, which would make having the guns firing simultaneously a resonable simplification. Enh.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Now I am guessing how the sim is implemented here... Join the club


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The physics model most likely runs as a real time loop with some events happening in sequence, others being triggered by timers. If you have every gun firing independently with 40 planes, average 4 guns each (109s versus P51s) then that is 160 timers for the guns alone firing off events. As I said before, dont need a timer per gun, just a timmer for the total ROF.. For fixed ROF the timer would allways be the same, for random you would load different values within a range.. Then some case statement to keep track of what gun fired last so you dont fire the same one back to back.. Wala random. But that is just one way to do it without a timer per gun.. Im sure there are others and better ways.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Branch prediction would be a nightmare and it would eat more CPU. Nightmare? Nah! As for CPU usage.. well a timer per gun would be more usage than just one total ROF timer.. But even if you did a timer per gun it would be a very SIMPLE pice of code.. No floating point, no high order math to do like the FM.. Just a simple counter that when it equals some number you do something. It dont get much simpler than than. As for branch prediction.. We aint taking AI here.. Or some campain point where a random decision needs to be make.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Current CPUs might well be able to handle it but 5 years ago - probably not. Well it dont get much simpler than this...

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
if (gun1rof = 336){
fire = 1;
gun1rof = 0;
else
fire = 0;
gun1rof++;
}</pre>
And PC's for years could handle that


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Whether the salvos are done per plane or per gun type across all planes that might happen to be firing I don't know. I am not sure how you would construct a test for this. Allready did prove the salvo thing.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
By firing guns of the same type as a salvo you lose something in the fidelity of the sim relative to reality in that it is sometimes theoretically possible for a plane to sneak between the bullets (1 gun does allow enough space as I mentioned during the long 50 cal versus cannon debate) at the gain of being able to support more planes in the air.

It might all change for BoB. It might be possible to change it with the current engine, but unless it is totally broke, don't fix it! Well, it aint broke offline.. but online it sure feels broke.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
(P.S. I suspect guns with very low ROF would need to have separate timers per plane, not shared with all guns of that type on all planes as below 600 or so rpm you wouldn't want to wait an average of 1/2*60/rpm seconds for the first round to fire.) I guess a global counter would work

TAGERT.
05-01-2005, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
A question to ask is:

Would there be any military advantage in having ripple fire, or guns synched with delay in any way, over and above just letting each gun fire at its own rate. The latter is simpler so if there isn't any clear advantage in forcing a particular firing order it is unlikely that the USAAF would have deliberately complicated the firing systems and thus increased the chances of failure. Your getting warmer! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Now there is always a chance that the guns fired in sequence initially (first round in a burst) simply due to some subtlety the way the firing was initiated and that this was simply an accidental consequence of this. Bingo

AlmightyTallest
05-01-2005, 08:09 PM
Not only will ripple or random give you a better chance of a hit, having each gun fire with their ammo belt loadouts the way they are modelled currently will allow for instance, a Mustang to fire and strike an enemy aircraft simultaneously with some AP, HE?, and APIT rounds in a very short burst.

Instead of each perfectly timed salvo having all 6 guns firing AP at the same time, then APIT, then HE for example like we have now, we would get combined munition effects as well, and that would really go for all planes if the guns would fire that way.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 02:51 AM
As I said before, dont need a timer per gun, just a timmer for the total ROF..

So if the M2 has an ROF of R and you have N guns and a total ROF NR you would then have each gun fire in sequence for each plane for a total ROF of NR, with one timer decrementing at intervals of 1/NR? It could work.

Issues with this are:
1. As now, each gun does not have its own ROF.
2. It's a little complicated if a gun is lost
or guns have different ammo loads per gun as
you then have to recalculate the timer.
3. Code isn't as OO as with a timer per gun.

Given the total ROF other factors don't really make much difference.

" But even if you did a timer per gun it would be a very SIMPLE pice of code.. No floating point, no high order math to do like the FM.."

I think you are misunderstanding the cost of using callbacks and the function calling overhead. It is not insignificant. I've profiled a lot of code and had to change designs from the neat way of doing things to others to reduce calling overheads and make code faster. It can be a rather large overhead.

The branch prediction issue is also important. If you have code going through thinking the next thing it is going to do is recalculate the FM on a Yak-9 and suddenly a timer tells it to go and fire a bullet from a P51 there is branch misprediction.

"Allready did prove the salvo thing."

No, not what I am on about here you haven't. If you have two planes with the same weapon type do the guns in plane A and plane B salvo at exactly the same time on a single PC? If they salvo together it implies only one timer per type of gun across all planes.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 02:56 AM
well, either ripple or random will give you a better chance of a hit,

The increased chance of a hit (at least one hit) drops off rapidly with the number of guns. With a salvo it is almost like a single gun firing a bullet that does 6 times as much damage, apart from the spatial separation issues. But 3 guns or above (or 600+ rpm) and the extra chance of landing at least one hit diminishes rapidly. Given the spatial separation of guns then your chance of landing at least one hit outside convergence won't change much at all (this is where the spatial effect will be largest).It will make most difference when firing at convergence. The effect will also be to spread out shots (less chance of a group of N shots hitting the same part) so it might reduce the chance of catastrophic failures, especially in deflection shooting.

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So if the M2 has an ROF of R and you have N guns and a total ROF NR you would then have each gun fire in sequence for each plane for a total ROF of NR, with one timer decrementing at intervals of 1/NR? It could work.

Issues with this are:
1. As now, each gun does not have its own ROF.
2. It's a little complicated if a gun is lost
or guns have different ammo loads per gun as
you then have to recalculate the timer.
3. Code isn't as OO as with a timer per gun.

Given the total ROF other factors don't really make much difference. Is just one way to skin a cat.. Funny thing is they probably doing a much smarter way then we will ever come up with here.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I think you are misunderstanding the cost of using callbacks and the function calling overhead. Nope, not at all. But I do think you were misunderstanding how simple it is for a processor to check an integer counter in comparison to doing some long drawn out floating point operation or sine like function. The modern build in co-processors make it much easier and faster than they were in the days of old.. But last time I checked the assembly code for something like that on an Intel processor it was still a multi clock operation.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It is not insignificant. It is relative to things like the FM or AI


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I've profiled a lot of code and had to change designs from the neat way of doing things to others to reduce calling overheads and make code faster. It can be a rather large overhead. Yes and I have written a lot of inline assembly with not one subroutine in it and 1000s of lines of code. But again, relative to other things going on it would be a small hit imho.. Even if they used a counter per gun.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The branch prediction issue is also important. If you have code going through thinking the next thing it is going to do is recalculate the FM on a Yak-9 and suddenly a timer tells it to go and fire a bullet from a P51 there is branch misprediction. Is why they allow you to disable interrupts for important things.. but that is true of just about all code these days.. priority and such.. but not a big deal.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No, not what I am on about here you haven't. Than your OT


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If you have two planes with the same weapon type do the guns in plane A and plane B salvo at exactly the same time on a single PC? If they salvo together it implies only one timer per type of gun across all planes. Roger, we already talked about the global timer thing, sounds good to me.

S.taibanzai
05-02-2005, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Covino:
I just took out the -51 and fired. I noticed no yawing and very little recoil. One of the most stable platforms in the game. Do you guys still play this game or just chat all day on the forums? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, all guns firing at the same time causes no yawing. A force on one side equals the force on the other and both occur at the same time.

Also, overall recoil should not be "just 2 MG's firing instead of six because of staggered firing." The rate of the forces acting is then increased by 3. So if you meant to say the recoil force should be like 2 MG's but firing 3 times as fast, then I would agree (and the end result would be almost the same as now).

Another thing is that I doubt any firing sequence is correct on any plane in the game. It's impossible to get correct data for the 120 some odd planes. Same situation with weapon jams. Why should P-51 get special treatment?

Because its a US wonder plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 06:41 AM
Function calling overheads can add up to 5% of your processing time easily if you have a structure such as

for (i = 0; i < value; i++)
doStuff();

If there isn't a lot to do in doStuff(), even with loop unrolling.

With regard to the integer speed, that's not really the issue, it's to do with function calling overheads and branch misprediction. The latter is a big hit, especially on the P4 due to the pipeline structure (long), less so on a mobile Pentium.

With regard to the other stuff, it's all speculation in the end

"Roger, we already talked about the global timer thing, sounds good to me."

Sorry, I must have missed that earlier. My mistake.

Diablo310th
05-02-2005, 07:03 AM
All of this is very interesting but the big question is: Has anyone e-mailed Oleg with any of this and can it be implemented into the next patch we are waiting for? This would be a benifit for all not just a few ac. If teh calculations are so simple and easy why couldn't Oleg put it into code for 4.0?

AlmightyTallest
05-02-2005, 09:03 AM
I've E-mailed Oleg months ago about this, I never get a response but I'm sure he got them. Also, there's been a few threads like this in ORR for a few months as well bringing up this issue.

I'd be surprised if Oleg didn't know about this.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 09:33 AM
If teh calculations are so simple and easy why couldn't Oleg put it into code for 4.0?

If they are not in 4.0 already I doubt they will find their way in now, what with Oleg out of action and the patch overdue - I don't think they'd want further delays. Hopefully for BoB we'll get something in finer detail as more CPU power in the average PC should allow for more fidelity in many areas, hopefully.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 09:35 AM
Out of interest, there are some semi open source flight sims out there which include weaponry (Flight gear is open source, but no guns) so it would be interesting to see, in the source code, how the physics loops and gun armaments are handled in those, if anyone has any source code that can be examined.

Viking-S
05-02-2005, 09:47 AM
Mail Oleg with what? I€m not sure that I have fully understood what has been€discovered€ here so let me recapitulate. The P-51 guns in RL started to fire simultaneously and then drifted away from each other as the individual guns wear and tear etc gave them different ROF.
In game the guns starts firing simultaneously and then keeps this synchronization, probably as a result of a simplification in the code to ease the strain on the CPU.
The result of the RL will put random bullets in stream instead of six bullets in formation sixty meters apart. ( 884m/sec and 550 R/min).
Now as a consequence of this, if we fit the real life model into the game, will be that we have to recalculate the damage done when hit by this bullet stream. A rough estimate will be that the damage will be 1/6 of the one we have today. Do we want that?

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Function calling overheads can add up to 5% of your processing time easily if you have a structure such as

for (i = 0; i < value; i++)
doStuff();

If there isn't a lot to do in doStuff(), even with loop unrolling. Maybe, maybe not.. it all depends. We can guess all day long as to how Oleg does it.. But how ever he does it, it can handle higher ROFs in sync than the .50, therefore it could handle the .50 at random imho. And just to be clear, I dont expect we will see this done on IL2-PF.. Too big of a change imho.. But had you asked me a few months ago if I thought Oleg would swap out the current FM for a new one I would have said no way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Im simply saying that the PC and network load can handle higher syncroness ROF guns, than it could handle lower random ROF guns.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
With regard to the integer speed, that's not really the issue, It is.. At least it was a few posts ago when you were implying it was some sort of hard to do code. My only point is that relitive to all the other code that is going on this is a very simple thing.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
it's to do with function calling overheads and branch misprediction. The latter is a big hit, especially on the P4 due to the pipeline structure (long), less so on a mobile Pentium. If you assume it is a function call and not part of the main loop. My *guess* is it would be part of it.. most *fast* things are.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
With regard to the other stuff, it's all speculation in the end I would go as far to say that not just other stuff, but all the stuff we are guesing at with regards to how Oleg does it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
A rough estimate will be that the damage will be 1/6 of the one we have today. Do we want that? Yes.. in that your chance of getting a hit is 6x better.. rough estimate! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Out of interest, there are some semi open source flight sims out there which include weaponry (Flight gear is open source, but no guns) so it would be interesting to see, in the source code, how the physics loops and gun armaments are handled in those, if anyone has any source code that can be examined. There is another good one.. A book called flighst of fantasy.. its old, DOS based mind set..

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1571690220/qid=1115052035/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6112498-7387317?v=glance&s=books

As with flight gear.. no guns.. but does give you a feel for the main loop.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 12:15 PM
It is.. At least it was a few posts ago when you were implying it was some sort of hard to do code.

I didn't intend to imply that, and apologies if you inferred what I didn't intend to imply.

OldMan____
05-02-2005, 05:50 PM
What the hell are you guys doing ? Trying to figure it out the call overhead on IL2 weapons code? WTF?! Even with the whole code at had this is not an annalysis that can be done just like that!


I really don't know how oleg implement this, but I can say how we implement in our guns and crafts in our game. During the game logic iteraction on each game logic element (including the carriers of the guns) each sub system is ticked. and ha a chance of doing something... a weapon tick may create a new entity if current tick time is big enough. Simple. This kind of implementation would automatically fire all weapons same time even if their firing order was not same time, as long as everyone was supposed to fire inside this time frame.

WWMaxGunz
05-03-2005, 01:46 AM
Sometimes the tracers go out in different patterns, at least some planes.
This points to the time slice may not get all guns fired and must finish next slice.
Who here knows the order or priority of tasks, the times given? I doubt that Oleg is
nearly that deep in the code, probably only knows it happens. Maybe only one or two
people on the team do, I doubt more than three work with the task balances at all if
that many. Too many cooks sort of thing and to do it, some have to have their heads
very deep in the code, used OS's (W98/ME/W2000/XP) and range of hardwares it runs on.
I envy those persons only a little and only for skill, talent and energy. With the
constant rush deadlines they get and demands for wide changes, they live with stress
that makes one old. Every break they get, they deserve more.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 05:47 AM
I find it quite interesting academically, OldMan. It almost makes me want to break out my old copies of BeOS and QNX.

What you suggest is yet another way of implementing it, OldMan. A problem with that is you might end up with time slices where there are too many things to be done in that timeslice for which those things are registered to take place, as MaxGunz notes. You'd need things to be prioritised, but also things done such that they can catch up on themselves. So all the FM stuff would have to get done, but the visual updates are probably things that can be missed out for a few timeslices (a stutter) without too much of a problem.

Even with this approach you'd still need counters to control firing events being inserted into timeslices. Or maybe you could arrange that a firing event registers a _potential_ new firing event in so many miliseconds in the future that is then cancelled if the trigger is no longer depressed at the point that this timeslice is reached? Then you might not need any counters at all.
If we knew how it was implemented we'd have an idea why guns fire in salvos and whether it needs to be like to save CPU power either now or back in 2000.

p1ngu666
05-03-2005, 08:35 AM
hm just thought
if hurri is random, thats 12 guns each plane, and 20 rounds each 240

and 6x50cal is 78
for american planes to equal rounds fired, ud have 3 6guners, so a p51,p40 and corsair, to equal a hurri http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-03-2005, 01:27 PM
Aaron, it's a bit simpler than that, thankfully.
The OS controls the multitasking of slicing time, I don't know the exact details but I can
guess very reasonably that it is a matter of hardware interrupt and yes, a main timer.
So what your program is is a collection of programs or program objects that runs along
with every other program running on and of the OS itself, every last one running as if
it was completely sequential to itself with no interruptions except if you ran a clock
or cyccle check in one fast or thin enough you could see the blips. So the guns thread
or possibly the thread per gun just runs whenever it is, I could say "in scope" but that
may not be true definition/use of "scope" but maybe it gives the picture -- from inside
each part the action is continuous one command to the next and only outside is there
breaks.
I used to have a multitasking basic that ran well on XT's and played with tasking on CP/M
using interrupts almost 25 years ago to see it happen. Played is the key word, we had
3 Mz 8085's and I had little spare time and an idle idea to investigate. None of this is
anything real and the age of power where tasking is the best way to code has been well
upon us for many years with some exceptions, like small embedded devices. Last time I
did main loop programming was on a 386SX and even then the OS ran some interrupts of its
own, which I can say has been true of OS's as long as I've experienced them -- 30+ years.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 03:43 PM
The OS controls the multitasking of slicing time, I don't know the exact details but I can guess very reasonably that it is a matter of hardware interrupt and yes, a main timer.

The OS controls the multitasking, but it doesn't necessarily control it very well because it is running other things, and consumer OSes aren't RTOSes. Not that there is much you can do about that.

But you still don't know how much work there will be at any point in time that should be completed in a particular timeslice.

You could start using preemption to ensure that for the whole physics loop timeslice the CPU is entirely locked to the physics loop, but you still might run out of time. Plus throwing around preemption and multiple threads would make for a fun time debugging when not using an RTOS. You'd need Windows XP embedded for that. Plus preemption is new to Linux, and I presume (I've not looked at this in detail) the mechanisms are different so if preemption was being used in IL2 it would make a Linux port difficult unless there are some nice OS independent wrappers out there.

TAGERT.
05-03-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The OS controls the multitasking of slicing time, I don't know the exact details but I can guess very reasonably that it is a matter of hardware interrupt and yes, a main timer.

The OS controls the multitasking, but it doesn't necessarily control it very well because it is running other things, and consumer OSes aren't RTOSes. Not that there is much you can do about that.

But you still don't know how much work there will be at any point in time that should be completed in a particular timeslice.

You could start using preemption to ensure that for the whole physics loop timeslice the CPU is entirely locked to the physics loop, but you still might run out of time. Plus throwing around preemption and multiple threads would make for a fun time debugging when not using an RTOS. You'd need Windows XP embedded for that. Plus preemption is new to Linux, and I presume (I've not looked at this in detail) the mechanisms are different so if preemption was being used in IL2 it would make a Linux port difficult unless there are some nice OS independent wrappers out there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>VXworks is a very good multi tasking.. aka threaded OS that allows you to set prioritys for function calls.. That and the timming of each function call.. Like a software interupt really.. that syncs the time loop calls for each function call. I have done a little programing on VXworks in that respect, but, not 100% sure if that is doable on WNT OS. I know some people claim it is, but I personally have not done it on WNT. As for locking the so called physics loop, not necessary, if coded correctly. That is dont code it in such a way where you make the assumption that the time between function calls is some constant.

WWMaxGunz
05-03-2005, 10:58 PM
I dunno if any task grabs control Aaron but I would guess not as 1) it would have to be
able to run on the same code for all usable versions of Windows and 2) it would probably
eventually crash or lock the machine up, but wouldn't that be normal Windoze anyway so
how do you tell? LOL!

IL2 series is not an RTS (edit:make that RTOS for those who RTS means Real Time Sim
instead of Real Time System), we run comms, devicelink and other tasks concurrent with it,
like internet services and control harware, TIR and differing sound schemes that all do
get their breaths of air. It's probably more like a balancing act or checking account
(also a balancing act) where you take out until you run out then pause until payday.
Ever had stutters or pauses? I know you have, when the neighborhood gets crowded. The
physics stops when the hardware is overwhelmed by a load and takes up once the chore is
done... so perhaps file and VRAM access do pre-empt control at times. Solution is more
RAM and faster PC, not RTS (edit: again, RTOS).

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 03:29 AM
"VXworks is a very good multi tasking.. aka threaded OS that allows you to set prioritys for function calls.. That and the timming of each function call.. Like a software interupt really.. that syncs the time loop calls for each function call. I have done a little programing on VXworks in that respect, but, not 100% sure if that is doable on WNT OS."

Windows embedded and CE seems to be able to do this, but AFAIK it either isn't in the standard versions, or it may not be fully implemented. We're more a UNIX/Linux group here, though.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 03:36 AM
"I dunno if any task grabs control Aaron but I would guess not "

Neal, I would be very surprised if it is, for exactly the points you make.

So that brings us back to the problem of prioritising things in a timeslice, and what to do with those things that should have been actioned in a particular timeslice but slip into the next one. You can postpone actions to the next timeslice but there might come a point that you need to start dropping actions entirely else the system would fall further and further behind itself. We don't know what the prioritisation of tasks is, or at what point the sim gives up, though.

I suspect you are right about it letting the physics slide when things are busy. It doesn't matter too much offline as it just means a slow down. Online it means that your PC is sending updates that don't really match where your plane SHOULD be if physics was working normally. So now, thinking about it, it makes it clear where those PrntScrn hacks for online play came from in terms of the game engine.

Now if it was an RTS system then Oleg would have to implement much more (almsot everything) but it would be **** hard to cheat! But if things crashed you'd be reaching for the reset button each time...

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2005, 05:14 PM
Well that's one area where programming becomes an art. You set priorities and some tasks
get more or bigger slices. The art becomes in making a balance or a system that has some
dynamic ability to balance at least to some useful degree. Remember that by setting the
options of graphics or making too big missions for your hardware or user connects that
online or off the game will run like ****, at 'art' fail as it were. The options let the
players adjust the overall process balance to match their hardware, much like trying on
clothes before buying to take home and the art expression is then the general pattern of
fit metaphor.
So you know the kinds of hardware on target machines and you write something to hopefully
be adjustable to not quite fill the capabilities left over after system load and then all
other necessary things like firewall. Then you hope that players will set options and fly
missions that will not be like choosing pants too tight to move in or button when breathed
out after a good meal. It is up to us to "buy loose clothes" if we want to move fast in
active situations and the maker to get right proportions of length and diameters (I have
always hated pants with skinny legs and for years that's what was mostly made, can you
think of places in sims like that? Even IL2, the view system is to me restrictive.) and
the strength of the cloth, again as it were.

So it's a balancing act, you put as many plates in the air as you have sticks and ways to
hold them up and keep them spinning. And the best artists make it look easy which is why
perhaps the many requests for this and that extra are a compliment to the team at 1C.

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Now if it was an RTS system then Oleg would have to implement much more (almsot everything) but it would be **** hard to cheat! But if things crashed you'd be reaching for the reset button each time...

You are way behind the curve! Even RTOS coded, processor exceptions are trappable. It is a
matter of having recovery code ready. Problems we see now are where the programs miss spots
that the systems don't also catch, and also some 'synergy' that the systems don't protect
from.

Change Real Time OS to Reasonably Timed OS and you have a more realistic definition anyway,
no matter how you 'slice it', hehehe. Even a main loop can only run so fast, ne? When you
have pipelined processors running in the low BILLIONS of cps's, you can do a good bit of
calculating per millisec. Really, it's when things to out to the bus that you begin to slow
down. Drive access is glacial by compare and I can't complain at ATA 133 shovelling data
even while the CPU still crunches how many hundred K of cache and my RAM is running 333 Mz.
But then, I've done 'meaningful work' that ran smoothly on 3 and even 1 Mz machines with as
little as 32k of RAM so slow it had wait states even at those bus speeds. So I tend to take
a different, perhaps less theoretical view.

Gibbage1
05-04-2005, 05:45 PM
Anyone consider this?

Browning .303 = 1140 rpm X 12 guns
Browning .50 = 750 rpm x 6-8 guns

As you can see, the Hurri can handle not only a much higher ROF, but twice the guns and still have random firing order. But the US guns all fire at the same time, creating 6-8x the force/recoil. Why. Thats a VERY good question.

Gib

p1ngu666
05-04-2005, 06:45 PM
the 4 hispano fire at the same time too gibb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and yes, i mentioned about .303 vs .50, but ppl failed to notice
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gifincluding u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-04-2005, 07:51 PM
The thing is all brownings had the same sync timing so Its understandable for someone to misunderstand that.

The firing assembly is what changed the firing order, the browning heavy machine gun themselves still have the same timings

The p51a and a36 also had a similiar assembly for the chin mounted brownings which fired thru the propellar blades.

So correct recoil values can be added to the guns so they match up to your charts which you changed and thought were unrealistic oleg, of course wrong values and i agree with you.

Then all numbers are correct and we dont have the recoil of 4 6 or 8 guns firing simotaneously.

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2005, 09:18 PM
So this wouldn't be the recoil over time as in per second that counts the rate of fire
as well as mass of bullet and muzzle speed then? Because THAT recoil would average out
and firing order would not affect it.

Would this be some kind of fishing for an advantage recoil?

TAGERT.
05-04-2005, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Anyone consider this?

Browning .303 = 1140 rpm x 12 guns
Browning .50 = 750 rpm x 6-8 guns
This leads up to what I was saying about relative rates.. i.e. there are planes in the game now that have much higher ROF's than the P51, therefore if the net code and PC resources can handle those firing synchronously, then it should be able to handle the P51 firing asynchronously!

For example, based on your numbers, the total ROF is...

Browning .303 = 1140 rpm x 12 guns = 13,680 rpm
Browning .50 = 750 rpm x 6 guns = 4,500 rpm
Browning .50 = 750 rpm x 8 guns = 6,000 rpm

So, the .50s *relative* to the .303s is...

13,680 rpm / 4,500 rpm = 3.04
13,680 rpm / 6,000 rpm = 2.28

Let's assume for now the HURRI is firing synchronies, that is 3 times the rate the P51 fires at, and about 2 1/4 times the P47. Therefore, if the net code and PC resources can handle a HURRI firing synchronously, it should be able to easily handle a P51 firing asynchronously! And if the HURRI is all ready doing it asynchronously, then it would be a slam dunk for the P51 to do it async (random)!!!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
As you can see, the Hurri can handle not only a much higher ROF, but twice the guns and still have random firing order. Are you sure the HURRI fires async (random)? How did you verify that? Either way it does not really mater.. In that as I showed above, assuming the HURRI is firing synchronously it is 3 times the rate of the P51! Thus should be able to handle it.. But if the HURRI is *truly* firing async (random) now, then it would be no problem what so ever to have the P51 do the same!!!!!!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But the US guns all fire at the same time, creating 6-8x the force/recoil. Why. That's a VERY good question. If what you saying about the HURRI firing sync (random) than there is something very strange going on here.. Why would Oleg do it for the HURRI but not the P51? But, even if the HURRI is not currently firing sync (random) and is firing synchronies, then, it proves the network and PC resources can handle a 3x higher ROF than the P51! Thus it should not be that hard to *make* the P51 start firing sync!

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 12:20 AM
Tagert. Easy way of testing this. Remember the old .50 cal dispersion threads? Place a light house in front of the aircraft and fire. All US aircraft fire a solid packet from the M2's. I noticed this when doing my test's and atributed it to the Netcode optimizations.

I just ran a test. I put a big object in front of my aircraft on a runway and played it. I slowed down the speed to 1/3 and fired. On both the P-47 and Hurri IIB, all guns start synked. The Hurri quicky becomes unsynked, but the P-47's guns stay synked 100%. Also, watching the hits, there is a steady stream of hits from the Hurri, but a pattern of hits from the P-47.

Thats not all. Oddly, I could not hold the Hurricane on target during firing. It would roll back even with brakes. But the P-47 stayed on target. I dont know what factors played a part on this. Weather its recoil, weight, or just **** good brakes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As with any test I do, I encourage everyone to do the test themself. Dont take my word for it. Find your own truth.

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The thing is all brownings had the same sync timing so Its understandable for someone to misunderstand that.

Im not gonna bother reading this before I call BS on this one. Wing guns where not sync'ed, so that€s error #1. Error #2 is NO BROWNING EVER MADE FIRED AT THE SAME SPEED!!!!! These where mechanical guns working off of springs and tolerances. Tighter spring ment higher ROF. Tighter tolerances ment higher ROF. Not even 2 M2's fresh out of the factory, one right after the other, would fire the same ROF. There could be as much as 50-100RPM difference between guns. THAT€S what makes these synced guns in IL2 so un-historical!!! Almost all guns in WWII are like this, with MAYBE the exception of German MG131's since they were fired electrically, not mechanically!

Please do your best to prove me wrong, but being WRONG does supports your argument that the guns should not fire all at the same time.

P.S. Even "synced" M2's would not fire at the same time. They would just stop firing because a mecanical device interupted the firing pin till the prop blade moved out of its way. But this device lowered the ROF from "around" 800 RPM, to "about" 500RPM. Quite a drastic drop! Thats a main reason the US did not like putting sync's on the M2's and out the guns on the wings!

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the 4 hispano fire at the same time too gibb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and yes, i mentioned about .303 vs .50, but ppl failed to notice
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gifincluding u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sorry. I did not have the time to wade though 7 pages of bickering. I just noticed that it seamed that people were not noticing that the .303's not only out numberd the M2's in turns of how many guns, but also fired a MUCH higher ROF!

Aaron_GT
05-05-2005, 03:03 AM
You are way behind the curve! Even RTOS coded, processor exceptions are trappable. It is a matter of having recovery code ready. Problems we see now are where the programs miss spots
that the systems don't also catch, and also some 'synergy' that the systems don't protect
from.

I was talking about running a program with real time priority on a non-RT OS assuming that something goes rather awry, though, so basically the scenario you were talking about.

Aaron_GT
05-05-2005, 03:10 AM
I just ran a test. I put a big object in front of my aircraft on a runway and played it. I slowed down the speed to 1/3 and fired. On both the P-47 and Hurri IIB, all guns start synked. The Hurri quicky becomes unsynked, but the P-47's guns stay synked 100%. Also, watching the hits, there is a steady stream of hits from the Hurri, but a pattern of hits from the P-47.

So that's definitely the actual bullet strikes rather than just the tracers out of sync? If so, so much for my theory that the sync was to to reduce CPU load. I may well be very wrong on this.

Some have said that in past patches the 50 cal wasn't firing in salvos. Maybe a change was made to all guns to use ripple fire and a bad code merge brought back the wrong behaviour? There seems to have been some toing and froing of other things (e.g. sniper AI bomber gunners) that seemed to suggest code merge issues.

Ankanor
05-05-2005, 03:58 AM
I am not an engineer, but let me ask you this:

The M2 have 750 rpm ROF, right? If the guns fire sync, that makes 12.5 recoil "packets" per second. This is too fast for you to notice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Maybe, just maybe, asynchronized fire will have a slightly different effect, but it is in the negligible ammounts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If there are issues, they are somewhere else to be sought. Just my biased MG151/20 whining 2 eurocents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-05-2005, 05:25 AM
It makes two differences:

1) the gap between fired bullets in waves is as many times wider with all guns fire at once
as there are guns. Where all fire together with 6 guns the gap even to moderately long
range will be over 100 meters where random fire would reduce that as much as but not dependable
to 1/6th. Result is that a target crossing the stream would have much less fraction of a
second to get clear through.

2) as now, if there is a hit then there are many probable hits travelling close with it. I
have long ago done continuous fire tests while sweeping the sight across a steady flying
target and 1/4 speed playback (Gibbage, my copy of the sim gets 1/2 and 1/4 but no 1/3 speed)
and the hits when they hit always arrived in waves but yes some could miss so they are each
modelled.

Does the more hits when you do make up for the gaps? By numbers it must. But it does tend
to raise the whine level from those hit when they are, they only count one hit and say your
guns are super damage "noob" guns while when they fly right through your shots untouched
that only proves how bad your aim is, you "need" the super laser guns.... oh, boo-F-hoo.

Some of these arguements do come off as rivet and bolt counting, the ones that don't work
on results as above. With random timing for sure there will be as many gaps as not, that
is what random is also about the guns can fire together time to time so just figure that
as now it is half right and be thankful that the dispersion is down from shotgun, closer
to history within game limits. Game Limits is where it's at anyway, there are other fixes
more needed than what is being called for, more needed by far and receiving attention too.

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Tagert. Easy way of testing this. Remember the old .50 cal dispersion threads? Place a light house in front of the aircraft and fire. Oh, yes, remember them well! One of the better threads with regards to purpose and information!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
All US aircraft fire a solid packet from the M2's. To be honest, I have not had time to test anything by the P51


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I noticed this when doing my test's and atributed it to the Netcode optimizations. That is what most folks around here now are assuming.. But, if what you say it true about the HURRI, than that assumption is wrong!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I just ran a test. I put a big object in front of my aircraft on a runway and played it. I slowed down the speed to 1/3 and fired. On both the P-47 and Hurri IIB, all guns start synked. The Hurri quicky becomes unsynked, but the P-47's guns stay synked 100%. Also, watching the hits, there is a steady stream of hits from the Hurri, but a pattern of hits from the P-47. Huh, ok, well, than imho there is NO GOOD EXCUSE/REASON why the .50 cals should not be firing async!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Thats not all. Oddly, I could not hold the Hurricane on target during firing. It would roll back even with brakes. But the P-47 stayed on target. I dont know what factors played a part on this. Weather its recoil, weight, or just **** good brakes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Hmmmm, on that note, a way to get away from having to use the breaks, make use of one of the new TEST RUNWAYS! In that they are like a CV, you start out with CHOCK BLOCKS and have to release them before you roll.. Holds the plane done nicely.. Now if we could only figure out a way to lift the tail up to level the plane we could do some RL looking test firing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
As with any test I do, I encourage everyone to do the test themself. Dont take my word for it. Find your own truth. Hopefully Ill have some time this weekend!

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The thing is all brownings had the same sync timing so Its understandable for someone to misunderstand that. The firing assembly is what changed the firing order, the browning heavy machine gun themselves still have the same timings As they like to say here in the great state of CA.. "El Wrongo Seenyor" And here is why


Col Leonard "Kit" Carson from his book PURSUE & DESTROY pg 73:
Incidentally, firing the guns did not noticeably slow the airplane down; the velocity loss was less than one mile per hr. What the pilot felt was the vibration of the six guns recoiling. When worked out, a P-51 weighing 9,000lbs. and going 300mph. (440tf. per second) had a kinetic energy of 27 million ft. pounds. That of all six guns firing simultaneously (actually, they don't; they fire at random with respect to each other, but for our purposes, let's lump their kinetic energy together) is about 75 thousand pounds. Thus the speed differentiation is negligible.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p51a and a36 also had a similiar assembly for the chin mounted brownings which fired thru the propellar blades. Can you say "interupter"?

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 10:44 AM
With all 6 guns firing at the same time, you get rapid "jolts" that shake your aircraft off target. If they were not synked, it would be a lot smoother and spread out. That means the recoil would be smoother and not throw you off target. This is most noticable in the P-38, but can be noticed in all US aircraft. When you fire, your aircraft sways (for P-51 and P-47) or jumps (P-38) but the Hurricane will rattle, not sway.

Just think of a V-8 engine. What if ALL 8 cylinders fired at the SAME TIME!!! The engine would rip itself off the car from the forces. Thats why there is a order that the plugs fire at, to evenly distribute the energy over the 360 degree turn of the crankshaft. Same deal with 8 guns. They where all firing at differant RPM's so they never fired all at the same time, creating 8x the recoil.

LeadSpitter_
05-05-2005, 10:51 AM
http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/search_results.po;jsessionid=hOx1eIazbvKEunHhXrxPt h6h(0CppkxPt)?product=&category=&search=gun+camera

check that out, and the boresighting tests. Also buy some of the training videos from zenos warbird drive in which show great detail of boresiting.

I have seen many p-40e ace interviews which when firing slowed the aircraft down 20-30mph as said by thier pilots, eric shillings memoirs for example but was lighter and had a much slower speed then the p51. There was 2-3 other pilots who states the same thing but cannot remember thier names now.

Do some more research instead of just carsons quote, north american aircraft blueprints for example, bore sighting, the real men behind the aircraft USAF ground crews. etc

Thats the problem one pilots quote from on a experience of over 50 years out weights the data, i dont agree with that. Although im sure they remembered alot in detail and will for life.

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 12:56 PM
What pilots THOUGHT they felt and what actually happened is two differant things. For example, the B-25 G and H model 75MM canon's. The pilots THOUGHT they felt the aircraft "stop in mid air" after firing the canon. Also the speedomitor would drop as much as 70-100MPH. So people asumed you could not fire more then two shots without stalling the aircraft. That was never true. In fact, the recoil device for the 75MM was extreamly advanced. The G and H's pilot manual says you start firing 2 miles away at a shalow 15 degree dive, and with a good loader you can get "5-6 shots off" before you need to think about passing over the target or braking off. A good loader can load a shell in 5 seconds. So this debunks the "stalling after 2 shots" BS. The drop in airspeed the pilots noticed was because of the differance in air pressre from the blast of the canon affecting the petot.

Gib

Aaron_GT
05-05-2005, 01:42 PM
If you have a 3000kg plane at 300mph (135 m/s)slowing down to 125 m/s (280mph)

F=ma, and the deceleration is 10 m/s/s, so F = 3000*10 = 30000 Newtons acting continuously.

A 50 cal round weighs 43g with a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s in an approximately 1m barrel. That's an acceleration of 880*880/2*1, or 387200 m/s. That must take place in 880/387200 or 0.0027 of a second with a force of 16000 Newtons.

We need a continuous force that averages out to 30,000 Newtons over a whole second, so we'd need 30000/(16000*0.0027) bullets to do this, or 700.

So if we had a P51 (roughly 3000kg) we'd need 700/13, or 53 50 cals on it to slow it down by about 20mph based on 50 cals firing 13 rounds a second.

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 05:44 PM
Nice Math.

Next one LS. We will shoot that one down too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-05-2005, 09:10 PM
Hey Aaron, ya forgot to throw in the energy being replaced by engine thrust and maybe
the drag effects as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A am a stinker, ain't I?

Gibbage1
05-05-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hey Aaron, ya forgot to throw in the energy being replaced by engine thrust and maybe
the drag effects as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A am a stinker, ain't I?

So, what your saying is Aaron's math is without a 1600HP engine also pulling the aircraft? So it would take 53 M2's firing to slow down a gliding P-51? Lol.

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
check that out, and the boresighting tests. I will as soon as you post a valid link, that one is broke


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Also buy some of the training videos from zenos warbird drive in which show great detail of boresiting. So? What does that have to do with sync vs. async?


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I have seen many p-40e ace interviews which when firing slowed the aircraft down 20-30mph as said by thier pilots, eric shillings memoirs for example but was lighter and had a much slower speed then the p51. There was 2-3 other pilots who states the same thing but cannot remember thier names now. But did those pilot go on to become engineers after the war to realise how wrong thier *feelings* were?


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Do some more research instead of just carsons quote, Gladly, do you have links to any other WWII ACE pilots that reached the rank of Col and went on to become aerospace engineers after the war and design new planes and also wrote a few books?


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
north american aircraft blueprints for example, bore sighting, the real men behind the aircraft USAF ground crews. etc If you have a blue print *showing* some sort of hardware interupter or synconizer we would glad to see it.. untill then Ill just have to take Carsons word over your *guess* at it


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Thats the problem one pilots quote from on a experience of over 50 years out weights the data, i dont agree with that. Right back at yah bright eyes... That same argument applys to your references.. Big difference here is the math of it all agrees with Carson's statments and debunks your pilot(s) statements


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Although im sure they remembered alot in detail and will for life. But *feelings* can be deceptive.. Ask 10 people who saw a man rob a bank and you will get 10 different storys.

p1ngu666
05-05-2005, 11:39 PM
imo the guns would be ripple or would unsync, as this gives u best chance of hit(s), remmber irl most pilots was poor shots by our standards, and weapons more powerful (like offline pf maybe)

incidently, RAF used 303 because of higher rof giving best chance of hits, also light, we had them, and we didnt have many 50cals about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

we could look at footage of straffing too, they look like its a constant stream, not the grouped we have ingame

p1ngu666
05-05-2005, 11:40 PM
also if all your guns fire at the same time, u loose some of the advantage of having more guns

Gibbage1
05-06-2005, 12:31 AM
Another interesting test I just did. Take a look at this image.

Test. Start in Smolensk at 1000M. Roll 180 and pull hard and fire your guns once you see ground in your crosshairs. Make sure to turn on arcade=1

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/gunpattern.jpg

Please note. Every white spot is a bullet hitting and damaging the ground. Thats what arcade is for. To see what your hitting.

#1, The gaps between the P-47's "birst's" are HUGE! You could park a B-17 between them. This represents high deflection shooting.

#2, The Hurricane IIB starts off synced (as I asumed earlier) but quickly looses sync. Creating a nice overall pattern. NOTHING can slip by that! Now your thinking "Well thats 12x guns and not 8x!". I trued the Hurricane I with 8 .303's and got the same results. Much less "gap" between the rounds, as if the guns were not synced.

#3. I threw in the Mig 3ud with wing guns. Its the only other aircraft that I know that had more then just wing mounted MG's. Note that it DOES have a pattern, but its MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller then the M2's. The differance of ROF on the M2's and the UB's can not make up for this dense pattern!!! Also, the Mig3 was pulling harder (it can turn better) then the P-47!!! So the distance between hits should be greater!

Also note, the spread on the P-47 is about the size of a the P-47, but the UB's are **** lasers. Im happy with the spread on the P-47 being what it is since I was firing from 500-800M away, but how is the UB's so freaken tight at the same distance? Remember, it has 1 nose mounted and 2 wing mounted guns. M2's are NOT lasers. These are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I hope this brings new info for you guys to debate about. Enjoy! As always, do the test yourself.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2005, 03:19 AM
Hey Aaron, ya forgot to throw in the energy being replaced by engine thrust and maybe
the drag effects as well.

Oops - yes, I forgot to say that I was making the simplifying assumtion that drag=thrust.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2005, 03:24 AM
Nic tests, Gibbage.

I wonder if the 3ud's wing guns have been misprogrammed with the dispersion of fuselage guns? Based on the figures butch2k posted the fuselage guns should have lower dispersion. But the 3ud's wing guns were notorious for high dispersion, but it might be an error.

How about testing with a B239 as well and P39Q as well - wing and fuselage 50 cals.

Does one of the IAR planes have wing and fuselage machine guns that are not M2s? Might be a good test too.

WWMaxGunz
05-06-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey Aaron, ya forgot to throw in the energy being replaced by engine thrust and maybe
the drag effects as well.

Oops - yes, I forgot to say that I was making the simplifying assumtion that drag=thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. What I mean is that it should go from simplified steady state drag = thrust to
simplified steady state drag = thrust - recoil. When you want to increase speed say 10%
then simplified you have to make thrust factor 1.21, add the 10% squared so if I subtract
10% I get less than 10% drop in speed -- so, more than however many guns you showed, hehehe.

Cajun76
05-06-2005, 08:36 AM
Depending on targets in the server, I give a squirt of my "cannons", weapon #2 on my P-47 shortly after TO to lessen the effect demonstrated in Gibbage's tests. This is one of the reasons why I find it useful to have Weapon 1 and 2 separate. Options.

I do have a/c fly right between bursts at times, extremely frustrating if you're engaged at co-alt or disadvantaged and still get in position for a debilitating hit on a hard maneuvering target.

TAGERT.
05-06-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Another interesting test I just did. Take a look at this image. WOW! Gibb that picture says it all! Hopefully all the nay sayers will stfu now! Looking at that P47 grouping.. it is worse than I imagined! Look at the gaps between thouse groups! And then look at the HURRI. Anyone that does not belive your chance of getting a hit is better with the async is smoking crack! On the flip side, even though the sync grouping in game means you will get a bigger hit when you do get a hit.. The dispersion is so bad that your probally not giong to hit the tgt wtih all 6 or 8 guns at the same time anyways! That and with sync fire you can not walk the rounds onto the target like you can with async fire.. like the HURRI!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I hope this brings new info for you guys to debate about. Enjoy! As always, do the test yourself. As allways, nice work Gibb! S! Question now is.. what can we do? We need to sum this up with some supporting data and THIS PICTURE and send it off to Oleg for a request to change it!!

Diablo310th
05-06-2005, 09:31 AM
WOW!! Gobbage. Nice work. I had heard of these empty spots in dispersion but had never seen how bad it was. This pretty much tells it all. No wonder at times it seemed I never hit even tho the target passed between my stream of fire. Are you going to e-mail this to oleg? With the patch delayed due to his accident maybe we'll ahve time to get this fixed. I would love to have those UBS lasers. LOL Let's make it all equal.

@Cajun...when you do that does it tend to unsync teh guns? If so i'll start making that pre flight practice.

p1ngu666
05-06-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Another interesting test I just did. Take a look at this image. WOW! Gibb that picture says it all! Hopefully all the nay sayers will stfu now! Looking at that P47 grouping.. it is worse than I imagined! Look at the gaps between thouse groups! And then look at the HURRI. Anyone that does not belive your chance of getting a hit is better with the async is smoking crack! On the flip side, even though the sync grouping in game means you will get a bigger hit when you do get a hit.. The dispersion is so bad that your probally not giong to hit the tgt wtih all 6 or 8 guns at the same time anyways! That and with sync fire you can not walk the rounds onto the target like you can with async fire.. like the HURRI!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I hope this brings new info for you guys to debate about. Enjoy! As always, do the test yourself. As allways, nice work Gibb! S! Question now is.. what can we do? We need to sum this up with some supporting data and THIS PICTURE and send it off to Oleg for a request to change it!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

id say guncam footage or good pictures of straffing, air to air stuff probably too easily dismissed
think i have some footage of beufighters and mossies straffin, think it shows a hurri like effect..

AlmightyTallest
05-06-2005, 11:07 AM
Any plane using groupings of the .50 cal seem to have the P-47 gaps, try it with the Corsair, P-51, Hellcat and the gaps look the same.

Thanks for that screenshot Gibbage, it says it all, and is exactly what we were looking for. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

unsynced fire would be a great addition for the next PF patch.

Gibbage1
05-06-2005, 12:04 PM
My bridges with Oleg in reguards to the M2 are more then burned. It would be best if I was not the one to approach Oleg on the subject. I also have not been part of this debate till late so I dont know the entire story of what you guys are debating abot. Just came in late, saw something interested and tested it.

TAGERT.
05-07-2005, 12:32 AM
Hmmm well in that case, how about a form letter? If I put one togther, include a few things, post it here for others to DL. Then we can ALL send Oleg a copy of the same report to his bug email address? Ill think Ill take Gibbages pick and shrink it down a bit and include it in the letter. Sound good? Then anyone could DL it, edit it to their liking, then send it off.

Cajun76
05-07-2005, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:

@Cajun...when you do that does it tend to unsync teh guns? If so i'll start making that pre flight practice.

I don't "unsync" them per se. If you happen to do a version of Gibs test, or strafe some water, you'll notice that there are more hits than tracers. I think it's 2 to 1, but it's been awhile. Basically, I squirt a burst with the "cannons" to get tracers "in between", if that makes any sense. So, if you do it right, (and it make take a couple of taps to do it) you'll see 4_4_4_4_4_4 instead of 8__8__8__8__8__8 on your tracers. I'm not sure this closes the gap actually, but it can make a tracking shot, (the ones that walk from the engine down to the pit are my favorites) easier.

Thinking about it, this may only work for the tracers, as all your guns fire at once with both triggers, even with tracer unsynced, 8 rounds are leaving at the same time, but only 4 are visible. I'm not sure if it's the game, or server, but at times I get a slowdown of fire, especially the first time I depress the triggers. Rat a tat a tat a tat a speeding up after a momment to the familar Ratatatatataatatatatat.

This could be the game "re-syncing" my bursts, but I'm not sure. It dosen't happan everytime, and I don't always unsync my tracers/guns. If anyone else has noticed this, we might be able to figure out just what is happening.

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:

@Cajun...when you do that does it tend to unsync teh guns? If so i'll start making that pre flight practice.

I don't "unsync" them per se. If you happen to do a version of Gibs test, or strafe some water, you'll notice that there are more hits than tracers. I think it's 2 to 1, but it's been awhile. Basically, I squirt a burst with the "cannons" to get tracers "in between", if that makes any sense. So, if you do it right, (and it make take a couple of taps to do it) you'll see 4_4_4_4_4_4 instead of 8__8__8__8__8__8 on your tracers. I'm not sure this closes the gap actually, but it can make a tracking shot, (the ones that walk from the engine down to the pit are my favorites) easier.

Thinking about it, this may only work for the tracers, as all your guns fire at once with both triggers, even with tracer unsynced, 8 rounds are leaving at the same time, but only 4 are visible. I'm not sure if it's the game, or server, but at times I get a slowdown of fire, especially the first time I depress the triggers. Rat a tat a tat a tat a speeding up after a momment to the familar Ratatatatataatatatatat.

This could be the game "re-syncing" my bursts, but I'm not sure. It dosen't happan everytime, and I don't always unsync my tracers/guns. If anyone else has noticed this, we might be able to figure out just what is happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think every 4th round is tracer.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The thing is all brownings had the same sync timing so Its understandable for someone to misunderstand that. The firing assembly is what changed the firing order, the browning heavy machine gun themselves still have the same timings
The following picture(s) are for Leadspitter who stated last night in the HL lobbie that he didnt understand what "+/-#" means.

I tired to explaine to him that "+/-" means there will be some .50s that fire faster than thier rated ROF and some that will fire slower than the rated ROF. But he still didnt seem to understand.. Which is why he *feels* that if a group of .50 all start firing at the same time, they will remain in sysc..

It is understandable for someone to misuderstand that... Espically someone that does not understand what +/- means. Since you would not take mine and many other peopls word for it on HL last night.. Let alone a WWII P51 ACE pilot turned aerospace engineer, without further delay.. Here is a picture you requested leadspitter..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/50_CAL_CALIBRE_M2_BROWNING_MACHINE_GUN.JPG

NOTE: The underlined RED part if for you and I hope it sheads some light on the whole "+/-" thing. If your color blind and dont see the red, then read the part about the ROF's being 200rpm difference between .50s on the SAME aircraft... That is to say 750rmp +/-200rpm.. Put yet another way a ROF *range* of 550rpm to 950rpm. The other colors are just interesting things that makes me wonder why the Lw have such a big selection of ammo and the allied .50s dont

Also, while on the topic of .50 cal the concept of gun heaters came up.. When I first noted it Leadspitter did a LOL and said something along the lines of the .50 cals did not have, let alone need gun heaters.. Again, he did not take my or many other peopls word for it in HL, let alone a WWII ACE P51 pilot turned aerospace engineers word for it. So, per your request Leadspitter here is that picture you requested

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/CARSON_GUN_HEAT.JPG

Another picture of a gun heater

http://www.collectorssource.com/images/50%20cal%20heater.jpg

Which is for sale here if your interested (thanks for the link HaVoK)
http://www.collectorssource.com/category.asp?catid=9

PS your welcome LeadSpitter! Anytime!

AlmightyTallest
05-08-2005, 08:34 AM
Great info Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I like the part with the new Incindiary .50 cal round. Pretty interesting stuff.

LeadSpitter_
05-08-2005, 11:19 AM
thx for the info target and thanks to havok for giving it to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You were bragging about saying the temp was what made the guns fire different and I said with a heater wouldnt the guns stay the same temp.

I showed you alot of photos of them without heaters and havok showed the two with heaters so some used them some didnt.

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
thx for the info target No problem buddy! Im just glad I could help! I would hate to see you go off and make yourself look silly by telling folks that the .50s fired in sync with each other. Let me know if you need anymore help with anything in the future, and, if your not sure about something feel free to PM me here or on HL before you post and make yourself look silly.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
and thanks to havok for giving it to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Give it to me? Oh, I see, your still confused. Recall that I initally stated in the HL lobby that the .50s had heaters, as noted in Carsons book, to which your reply was "*LOL* air cooled .50s dont have or need heaters" At which point HaVoK was kind enough to provide a link to the .50 cal heater for sale on that web sight.. In that I didnt have that page scanned in from Carsons book at the time. Do you now understand the *sequence* of events on the heater topic? Note the pun on the use of the word sequence! Not to be confused with the .50 cals firing in *sequence*. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
You were bragging Me? NEVER! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
about saying the temp was what made the guns fire different Just to be crystal, I said that is just one of the things that could cause them to fire at different rates.. One of many


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
and I said with a heater wouldnt the guns stay the same temp. Not true, initally you said there were not any heaters at all.. It wasnt until after HaVoK's post that you changed your tune.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I showed you alot of photos of them without heaters and havok showed the two with heaters so some used them some didnt. You didnt show squat, and just to be clear, I never said they all had them, only that they existed.

But look at the bright side here.. At least now you realise that the .50s did not fire in sync with each other, let alone in some sort of sequence as in your orginal GIF picture on page 1, RANDOM! Which makes you wrong and Carson right... But most of us knew that way back on page 1! Just remember, better late than never Leadspitter! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LeadSpitter_
05-08-2005, 11:57 AM
you were braggen for at least 45 minutes on hl. But i was wrong.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/8thaf.jpg

i posted a bunch of other pictures of the gunbay doors of the 47 and 51 without the heaters on them along with b24 and b17 positions.

then you said all corsair c's with 4 cannon used them.

Big deal some used them some didnt. And your statement was all used them from 43 - 45
---------------------------

So whats wrong with the .50 then being so uneffective and so unaccurate?

The spacing is wrong still regaurdless the .50s in game fire at the same time except one of the right outter wing browning.

p1ngu666
05-08-2005, 12:01 PM
just curious, did the bomber guns have heaters?

T_O_A_D
05-08-2005, 12:08 PM
Well no fricken wonder I can't hit with theses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Another interesting test I just did. Take a look at this image.

Test. Start in Smolensk at 1000M. Roll 180 and pull hard and fire your guns once you see ground in your crosshairs. Make sure to turn on arcade=1

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/gunpattern.jpg

Please note. Every white spot is a bullet hitting and damaging the ground. Thats what arcade is for. To see what your hitting.

#1, The gaps between the P-47's "birst's" are HUGE! You could park a B-17 between them. This represents high deflection shooting.

#2, The Hurricane IIB starts off synced (as I asumed earlier) but quickly looses sync. Creating a nice overall pattern. NOTHING can slip by that! Now your thinking "Well thats 12x guns and not 8x!". I trued the Hurricane I with 8 .303's and got the same results. Much less "gap" between the rounds, as if the guns were not synced.

#3. I threw in the Mig 3ud with wing guns. Its the only other aircraft that I know that had more then just wing mounted MG's. Note that it DOES have a pattern, but its MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller then the M2's. The differance of ROF on the M2's and the UB's can not make up for this dense pattern!!! Also, the Mig3 was pulling harder (it can turn better) then the P-47!!! So the distance between hits should be greater!

Also note, the spread on the P-47 is about the size of a the P-47, but the UB's are **** lasers. Im happy with the spread on the P-47 being what it is since I was firing from 500-800M away, but how is the UB's so freaken tight at the same distance? Remember, it has 1 nose mounted and 2 wing mounted guns. M2's are NOT lasers. These are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I hope this brings new info for you guys to debate about. Enjoy! As always, do the test yourself.

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
you were braggen for at least 45 minutes on hl. Felt more like an hour!


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
But i was wrong. Agreed 100%


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/8thaf.jpg

i posted a bunch of other pictures of the gunbay doors of the 47 and 51 without the heaters on them along with b24 and b17 positions. Not true.. with regards to a bunch of other pictures, than again, never said they all had them, only that they existed.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
then you said all corsair c's with 4 cannon used them. Not true, never said all, I simply pointed out that initally the F4u-C was limited in alt operations due to the 20mm freezing up. They *fixed* that by adding heaters. Im sure that there were +/- a few F4u-C in the filed that didnt get the mod.. So I wouldnt be so silly as to say all.. Becaue I unlike you realise that there is allways a "+/-" in RL! Put another way, no absolutes! There is an exception to every rule! But the exception does not change the rule.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Big deal some used them some didnt. Agreed.. Im just glad you realise that you were wrong about the .50s firing in some sort of sequence as shown in your gif picture.. im also glad that you now realise that there were heaters for the .50 cals and other planes.. And I am very glad that you now realise that Carson was right all along and that you were wrong on both of those topics!


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
And your statement was all used them from 43 - 45 Not true.. Keep in mind, I know about the "+/-" in life, you dont.. Or at least didnt.. Glad I could help you realise the value of the "+/-" in life


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
So whats wrong with the .50 then being so uneffective and so unaccurate? Ask Oleg


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The spacing is wrong still regaurdless the .50s in game fire at the same time except one of the right outter wing browning. Agreed! But, you will have a beter chance convining Oleg to make a change based on the REAL reason as aposed to your silly reason.

faustnik
05-08-2005, 02:53 PM
Nice work Toad!!! Great find. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Nice work Toad!!! Great find. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif That is a pretty neat find! Looks alot like the one Gibbage posted on the previous page.. As a mater of fact... hey?!

faustnik
05-08-2005, 03:11 PM
Oops, missed that page Tagert. Just clicked on the last page.

Good thing we have you as resident smarta$$ to point it out though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Oops, missed that page Tagert. Just clicked on the last page.

Good thing we have you as resident smarta$$ to point it out though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What can I say.. It's a gift! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

T_O_A_D
05-08-2005, 04:49 PM
ROFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif faustnik

Master of the Obvious this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Been Fishing?

Gibbage1
05-08-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Oops, missed that page Tagert. Just clicked on the last page.

Good thing we have you as resident smarta$$ to point it out though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What can I say.. It's a gift! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talking about gift's, Me, you, Chino on the 22nd. They will be flying an SBD! Plus some other prop jobs like the stealth P-38.

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Talking about gift's, Me, you, Chino on the 22nd. They will be flying an SBD! Plus some other prop jobs like the stealth P-38. Count me in! I love standing 5ft away from the P38 where they fire her up!

But, we may want to reconsider.. In that LeadSpitter told me on HL during the gun heater debate that Chino *only* has fiberglass display replicas of real WWII aircraft, no real WWII aircraft! Someone should contact Chino and tell them to stop claiming to have real WWII aircraft! It has to be very unsafe flying all those dispaly models! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Been Fishing? Been missin more like it! LOL!

faustnik
05-08-2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
ROFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif faustnik

Master of the Obvious this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Been Fishing?

I got out to the Delta about 2 weeks ago and did well on spinnerbaits and jigs. The biggest was a nice 5.5 pounder on a spinnerbait. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-08-2005, 09:33 PM
If I didn't say it already, great work showing what is the point Gib!

I would suggest that with .50's, very short aimed burst discipline will pay off the highest.
Yes, anyone firing deflection or any kind of timed shots will have to get good with judgement.

Remember that hits are going to average as en masse rather than one or two and spraying is
just a way to waste lots of ammo.

Is that gaming the game? Play it like it is and be smart about it. Fire discipline was real
to aerial combat since WWI. When the sim changes, I bet quick kills will be harder to make
while light to no effect damage will get easier to do. Just wait.

How the 50's work being different from all others can't be the same code so it must be for
some reason deliberately there. But was it this way since 2001 with the P-39?

TAGERT.
05-08-2005, 10:26 PM
We will allways have to make do with what we got.. But to do so we need to know what it is doing. Now we do. Problem is, as currently implemented, the wing mounted .50s has the worst of both worlds. That is to say all the RL advantages of wing mounted smaller cal armament is null and void. The advantage of having wing mounted guns is no sync/interrupter is required to fire through the prop.. thus they can fire as fast as they can.. But look at those gaps between hits for the 50s.. That is worse than if you were firing through the prop! It would take some very thick prop blades to cause a pattern like that.. I really can not see how the actual ROF is even being implemented here what with those large gaps. Another advantage of no sync/interrupter is you get a nearly constant stream of bullets (statistically) like you see from the HURRI. This constant stream makes it much EASIER to walk you bullets onto the target and KEEP THEM THERE! The way it is now, we shoot, miss, adjust, miss again, re-adj, miss.. all the time thinking we were putting out a constant stream and wondering why we were not getting any hits.. even though the aim looks good.. Even with the late war P51 gun sight.. Turns out our aim is fine but we were missing due to the gaps, and adj when we really didnt need to. I don't know why this is the way it is.. makes no since at all.. Especially in light of the HURRI and Russian planes.

edgflyer
05-09-2005, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
We will allways have to make do with what we got.. But to do so we need to know what it is doing. Now we do. Problem is, as currently implemented, the wing mounted .50s has the worst of both worlds. That is to say all the RL advantages of wing mounted smaller cal armament is null and void. The advantage of having wing mounted guns is no sync/interrupter is required to fire through the prop.. thus they can fire as fast as they can.. But look at those gaps between hits for the 50s.. That is worse than if you were firing through the prop! It would take some very thick prop blades to cause a pattern like that.. I really can not see how the actual ROF is even being implemented here what with those large gaps. Another advantage of no sync/interrupter is you get a nearly constant stream of bullets (statistically) like you see from the HURRI. This constant stream makes it much EASIER to walk you bullets onto the target and KEEP THEM THERE! The way it is now, we shoot, miss, adjust, miss again, re-adj, miss.. all the time thinking we were putting out a constant stream and wondering why we were not getting any hits.. even though the aim looks good.. Even with the late war P51 gun sight.. Turns out our aim is fine but we were missing due to the gaps, and adj when we really didnt need to. I don't know why this is the way it is.. makes no since at all.. Especially in light of the HURRI and Russian planes.

Flame away all, but it seems that the US planes keep getting worse with every patch anyways. Pretty sad if you ask me. I remember the fine tuned P51 of Patch 3.03 Such a great ride at that time with great stall characteristics unlike what we have now. Now the guns are suffereing from what I see here. Everything else gets better but the US seems to get worse. I know that the Oleg fanboy are going to nail me on this but oh well. If the 50's are changed, then I bet that they are made worse just like every other US "Improvement"

JtD
05-09-2005, 09:33 AM
Yesterday I watched that Tuskegee Airmen movie and they had footage of a P-51 firing it's guns from outwards guns to inward guns. Now I don't think I can see differences in the range of a tenth of a seconds, so these muzzleflashes could also come from different ammo types and belting.

I hope all of you are aware of the fact that when using synced guns firing through the prop there are actually some blades between each shot and not some shots between each blade.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2005, 12:26 PM
.50's timing is the same since AEP at least. Yup, keeps getting worse. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Flight behaviour of *all* planes got a bit more real from PF release till latest, the
lowspeed lift was incredibly too high, now just high. Not US planes targetted unless
you want to consider the number of US planes introduced with PF.

How about compare last patch AEP Mustang to now Mustang? That is more fair if you want
to show a trend of some kind.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2005, 12:47 PM
BTW, a difference of 200 rpm on the guns of one fighter does not mean plus and minus 200.

Not +/- 200.

If doesn't necessarily mean 750 +/- 100 either. More likely 600 to 800. More than 200?
Maybe 590 to 800? Maybe 540 to 750. Does a worn gun fire higher ROF or slower? Tell me
that a bit of wear makes an extra 100 rpm possible with no extra mods and I'd say that hey,
why didn't they just make the guns looser which is hey, I don't buy that anyway unless you
are also talking about a badly increased dispersion, reason not to screw them up for ROF.

edgflyer
05-09-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
.50's timing is the same since AEP at least. Yup, keeps getting worse. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Flight behaviour of *all* planes got a bit more real from PF release till latest, the
lowspeed lift was incredibly too high, now just high. Not US planes targetted unless
you want to consider the number of US planes introduced with PF.

How about compare last patch AEP Mustang to now Mustang? That is more fair if you want
to show a trend of some kind.

Last patch AEP Mustang did not have a effect on the flight. Just the guns got tighter. The last patch of 3.04 took away so much from the US planes. The total flight model changed on all. And I already know, learn how to fly. Etc. Etc. Even though I have never flown a real WWII war plane, I cannot beleive that if the slightest wrong move would send the plane into a complete stall. I would have to beleive that in the heat of battle, a pilot with his adreneline pumping would definately jerk the stick a few times. Do that here once and your dead. But this has nothing to do with this thread. I just keep seeing things go from decent to worse on some models and others becoming untouchable (you all know which planes I am talking about)

Back to the gun thing. It stands to logical reason, when the trigger mechanism is activated on six guns at once, the guns will not fire all at the same time throught out the burst. Each gun will have a different rate hence it will seem like it has been mechanicaly synced to do so, but that is just plane physics doing their thing with the surroundings. Each gun having it's own set of variables to contend with.

To JTD,
Do not beleive everything you see in the movies. In that same movie, do you realy think that a P51 was able to blow up a destroyer with 6 50 caliber guns. No way, no how. Even if the gun was to hit a powder room, how do you think a bullet would ignite the powder. (There was no loose canisters of powder, just armament rooms that the fifties would not reach.) The gun you saw was most likely from cannon fire and if you noticed the boat was mored so it was deffinatly set up for testing. The P51 did not have a mechanically designed syncronized fire pattern. Just all guns doing what they could do independently.

TAGERT.
05-09-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW, a difference of 200 rpm on the guns of one fighter does not mean plus and minus 200.

Not +/- 200.

If doesn't necessarily mean 750 +/- 100 either. Dissagree and here is why


The MIGHTY EIGHT WAR MANUAL:
In one test as much as 200 rounds per minute difference was recorded between guns in the same fighter
The application of the "+" or "-" depends on which guns your talking about relitive to the other.. If your talking about the slower gun, then the faster gun is "+"200rpm *relitive* to the slower gun, if your talking about the faster gun, then the slower guns is "-"200rpm *relitive* to the faster gun. Thus the +/- holds.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
More likely 600 to 800. More than 200? Maybe 590 to 800? Maybe 540 to 750. That is alot of *maybes*! Just what do you base your *feeling* on? As for my statments of +/-200rpm (aka difference) are based on the the following


The MIGHTY EIGHT WAR MANUAL:
These figures were USAAF specimen stated figures, there being considerable variation in battle performance through factors such as the condition of the individual weapons, temperature and ammunition feed
Which if you will note are based on USAAF specimen stated figures.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Does a worn gun fire higher ROF or slower? I dont know, but it is generally understood that a worn gun will not have very good aim. But I dont have anything to suport that except years of shooting old guns at the range! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tell me that a bit of wear makes an extra 100 rpm possible with no extra mods and I'd say that hey,
why didn't they just make the guns looser My *guess* is jamming and accuracy, but that is just a guess on my part.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
which is hey, I don't buy that anyway unless you are also talking about a badly increased dispersion, reason not to screw them up for ROF. Well, I guess it is decsion time than.. Do I take the MIGHTY EIGHT WAR MANUAL documentaion of USAAF testing or WWMaxGunz *feelings* based on.. on.. on.. well on nothing at this point. Therefore, Ill have to side with the MIGHT EIGTH for now Max.. No hard *feelings* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2005, 10:00 PM
Destroyer. Wooden decks. Tracers and incendiary bullets. Fire. Brass casings, powder,
explosive shells. Nope, no chance of an explosion. I've only read of cargo boats set on
fire by bullets and exploded anyway, never a destroyer.

Question about the screenies with the hit patterns. Well, more than one question.

1) How far above the ground were the shots fired?
2) How fast and tight of a loop were you flying?
3) Same way each plane?

The first two are very important as to the spread and how drastic a pitch change anyone
would have to make to achieve how much gap at what distance. We are talking about 1/12th
of a second between groups if I have that right? Let's say I take 1 second to fire on a
target while shooting from just below to just above. No, let's make that 1/2 second as I
don't like long bursts. And I won't be firing until say 1/2 target height below to 1/2
target height above. So 6 groups go out and half should hit the target but maybe only 2
get good contact. Am I really losing so much that I wouldn't anyway?

With deflection shots, yes it's more possible for the target to fly between at high angles
but it's still a dice roll if I fire blind or with little skill. If I hit though, I hit
good enough to send the victim off whining about noob gun lasers and maybe even see a post
about it or someone else quoting the event after they've shared shoulders and had virtual
ice cream (sorry, beer is for winners and ice cream for those with near PMS) together. It
is not all bad for the US planes, at least the AP and API is not replaced by ball ammo
except of course for gunpod weapons.

Gibbage1
05-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1) How far above the ground were the shots fired?
2) How fast and tight of a loop were you flying?
3) Same way each plane?


There is NOTHING I could post or type that will convince you that my test was accurate and balanced. Due to the way things are in the game, I cant make sure all aircraft have the same speed, angle, flight, altitude and whatever. Thats why I SPACIFICALLY said "Do the test and see for yourself". I went into detail on how I did the test. Please, find out for yourself.

TAGERT.
05-10-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There is NOTHING I could post or type that will convince you that my test was accurate and balanced. Due to the way things are in the game, I cant make sure all aircraft have the same speed, angle, flight, altitude and whatever. Thats why I SPACIFICALLY said "Do the test and see for yourself". I went into detail on how I did the test. Please, find out for yourself.
Roger.. even the NACA couldnt recreate the exact speed, angle, altitude during flight down to 1mph, 1degree, 1foot! But, the NACA also took that +/- error into consideration when reviewing the data results. With that same frame of mind (spirt), we can do the same with your tests results and thus they are good enough for us! Well most of us. With regards to the actully point you were trying to make and not some tanget topic about testing methods, in that we realise from the start that there will be some variation due to speed, angle, and altitude, well most of us.

This sim provides more methods to *test* it then any other sim I have every played. Using DeviceLink and track files you can do and document some very neat things! Yet even when you go to the trouble of using DeviceLink and track files there will allways be the nay sayers that will pick apart the method.. But I have not given up on using DeviceLink and track files, I have just learned to brush the nay sayers aside with the rest of the *noise* in my data. In that their motivation is not in contributing to the topic at hand, in that they spend more time on the nit-picking then they would have had they just done the test themselfs. I dont know what or where that kind of nay sayer motivation comes from, but it is clearly not in furthering the topic at hand imho.

Obi_Kwiet
05-10-2005, 10:11 AM
I just which he'd fix the way the tracers come out, if anything. It's impossible to syncronize guns so precisely that all the bullets come out with-in a foot of each other. It just looks stupid, IMHO.

Fehler
05-10-2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
In that their motivation is not in contributing to the topic at hand, in that they spend more time on the nit-picking then they would have had they just done the test themselfs. I dont know what or where that kind of nay sayer motivation comes from, but it is clearly not in furthering the topic at hand imho.

Moderators... Someone has hacked tagert's IP, please investigate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



P.S. My position on this issue is that the .50 cals should be as historical as 1C could possibly get with the coding he has available. If it is wrong, fix it, if it is right, keep it. I dont pretend to know either way.

BUT, I will say this, I have fired the M2 and other assorted machine guns, and although X number of rounds per minute are listed for any type of gun, real world performance is much different, both in favor, and against a machine gun. Temperature, Dirt, Spring coefficient, even the various types of gun oil come into play. The numbers given for rates of fire are a generalization of what can be expected out of a gun, not a black and white calculation of exactly what the gun will fire.

I have always found it odd that non-synchronized guns fire at the exact same rate, but I always chalked up this affect in the game as game code simplifying or compromising.

WWMaxGunz
05-10-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1) How far above the ground were the shots fired?
2) How fast and tight of a loop were you flying?
3) Same way each plane?


There is NOTHING I could post or type that will convince you that my test was accurate and balanced. Due to the way things are in the game, I cant make sure all aircraft have the same speed, angle, flight, altitude and whatever. Thats why I SPACIFICALLY said "Do the test and see for yourself". I went into detail on how I did the test. Please, find out for yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Gib, but I'm not asking for anything like exact. I expect you started them all off
the same but I ask anyway. Just getting it down that's what you did.

How far to the ground is because it affects how far apart the rounds hit. If it's a
longer way down than I'm likely to shoot then I'll figure the hits are spread more.

Ditto with the tightness of the loop considering how much angular change I might make
while shooting will ordinarily be less or not.

IOW, how extreme is that spread? It well illustrates that the shots are clustered and
I think I did compliment you on that, didn't I? You can put the stick down, really,
it's not an attack! Just nailing some positions and hey, I don't think that anyone
should panic -- compared to the shotgun .50's of early AEP this is very small from
where I stand.

I have written about .50's grouped and been shot down for months now, btw. I didn't
run so good a test as you did. All I did was fire steady on a target and then go back
and played the track back at 1/4 speed with arcade=0 and just watched the hits come in
waves. That's how I knew that anti-.50's whiners and the crusade to have them cut in
power were full of it when they talked about "just one hit" doing so much. One hit
doesn't but you rarely see just one hit from 50 cals.

I would rather the shots were spread evenly but there's work I'd rather see done to
the sim far more. There's only so many man-hours in a month and the price of one
change IS the loss of another. Also, the code is spagettied and has been for 2 years
from all I've seen Oleg post about it... there is *almost* no simple fix. Why the
.50's or just the US .50's don't or can't use the same method as other guns is a
mystery to me but I won't cry foul over a maybe the way some (not you) people will.

Gibbage1
05-10-2005, 07:36 PM
OK. Well as I stated, I started at 1000M, inverted and pulled. I trued to pull the same speed, but the P-47 and Hurricane are so differant. The P-47 with its greater speed got closer to the ground then the Hurricane. That "should" mean the P-47's fire pattern would be tighter then the Hurricane. Also, since angle adds to the distance that the round must fly, the hits from far left and far right fly as far as 1000M! (M2's disappear after 950M) The rounds in the center are between 300-500M.

The best test is too "feel" whats going on. If you fly a Hurri IIc against a friendly bomber, you can see a constant stream of hits on the target. That allows you to walk your fire over area's. try the same with the P-47 and you get the same "packets" you see from my screen shot. Groups of hits, not a stream. So walking the aim is impossible. Its not even the ammount of guns thats important since an 8 gun Hurricane will also give the same stream, and even a 3 gun Mig will give a tighter stream of fire then an 8 gun P-47. Thats why I added the Mig in there. The 3 UB's have only about 50RPM more then the M2's, but have 1/10th the gap between them. Again, the outside hits are as much as 1000M away from the point of fire, and the inside is between 200-500M. That is all the proof that should be needed to say "Hay, the M2's are porked.... AGAIN!"

I will test the Mg151 and MG13 and see if there are similar gaps. Im betting that 2x MG13's have less gap between rounds then the 8x M2's. Thats just porked big time.

Also, nobody can say its due to code optimization since the Hurricane IIb CAN handle 12 guns at a much higher ROF. Thast the point of the IIb added in this test, to show people IL2's engine CAN handle 8x M2's unsynced.

TAGERT.
05-11-2005, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
Moderators... Someone has hacked tagert's IP, please investigate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Just to be crystal.. Dont confuse nit picking the lack of any testing or data with nit picking the method of testing or data presented. In that I fully admit, and am very proud of my stance on giving people a hard time about thier *feeling* on how a plane should fly, or on thier *interptation* of what a pilot ment when he said his plane was *faster* than another.

But to nit pick someone that went to the troulbe of actully testing for something, providing a track file, picture and supporting data. I have a lot of respect for those types of people and wont nit pick it to death.

Perfect example, 109K turn at 6000m thread. There was some WWII 109K data presented, a bunch of people were demanding that the 109K in the game be changed to match the data.. In that they were *claiming* that the 109K in the game could not turn as well as the data said it could. Did I start off nit picking the data? Nope! Did I start off nit picking the track file they provided to support their statement? Nope! Because they did not provide a track file. So, what did I do? I took a 109K to 6000m and did a turn that matched the data perfectly, and provided the track file for all to DL and see for themselfs. In doing so I proved that the game didnt need to be changed, the data and game are good, and that it was a simple case of people just needing to learn how to fly.

Gibbage1
05-11-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.: I took a 109K to 6000m and did a turn that matched the data perfectly, and provided the track file for all to DL and see for themselfs. In doing so I proved that the game didnt need to be changed, the data and game are good, and that it was a simple case of people just needing to learn how to fly.

Let me guess. They nit-picked your track? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2005, 12:22 PM
No, he used some but not full nose up trim and they all decided the trim has to be nose
down to match trimmed flight at the start speed. Yeah, I know, the game is not reality
since in the game you can't use both arms pulling the stick so you have to trim but then
if that were acknowledged there would be no basis to demand better performance. And we
all know that 109's were super turning planes almost without equal, don't we? Well, some
are very sure on this and even have rafts of quotes from pilots who were there, etc. All
the other quotes... propaganda. Funny but, none of those people show a proper full document
Rechlin turn test. Those must not exist.

He also did not do a completely flat turn, there was some rise and fall.

last thing he did wrong was to turn the plane way too fast and that was inexcuseable.

gkll
05-13-2005, 05:45 AM
Edgflyer said:

{quote]I would have to beleive that in the heat of battle, a pilot with his adreneline pumping would definately jerk the stick a few times. Do that here once and your dead.[/quote]

Jerk the wheel excitedly in a race car under the wrong circumstances and you'll die too... and race car drivers have plenty of adrenline flowing... they somehow manage to avoid 'jerking the wheel while excited'...

Now even <high> performance planes shouldn't be like a car, Im not saying that. However they might be pretty sensitive out near the edge of the flight envelope and anyways it gets a lot tougher in 4.0 and good on it... I personally have made a serious hobby of hustling genuine high performance equipment around on the limit, and suspect, as a result of this experience, that an overweight, overpowered, heavily loaded WW2 bird, with pre-computer by guess and golly aero, would be quite a handful out at the ragged edge... more power to 4.0! (if the prelim info is correct that is...)

JG5_UnKle
05-13-2005, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
last thing he did wrong was to turn the plane way too fast and that was inexcuseable.

I managed to turn it quicker - my FM must be more "right" then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif or am I overmodelled?

TAGERT.
05-13-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I managed to turn it quicker - my FM must be more "right" then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif or am I overmodelled? So, can we expect to see a thread calling for the 109K turn ability to be reduced based on your testing? Didnt think so.

TAGERT.
05-13-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Let me guess. They nit-picked your track? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Bingo!

WWMaxGunz
05-13-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
last thing he did wrong was to turn the plane way too fast and that was inexcuseable.

I managed to turn it quicker - my FM must be more "right" then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif or am I overmodelled? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like old man Tagert is undermodelled and due for patching, in two weeks.

BTW, he hit blackout and lost ability to keep it flat so I wonder if you ran it cleaner
as I forgot what you posted and how much trim you had to use.

TAGERT.
05-13-2005, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
More like old man Tagert is undermodelled and due for patching, in two weeks. YAWN


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW, he hit blackout and lost ability to keep it flat so I wonder if you ran it cleaner
as I forgot what you posted and how much trim you had to use. Some do, some talk about what others do.

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2005, 01:08 PM
Here's a dollar, buy a sense of humor.

Gibbage1
05-14-2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Some do, some talk about what others do.

Bingo!!!

Gibbage1
05-14-2005, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here's a dollar, buy a sense of humor.

Here is a mouse click. Find a smiley and use it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
05-14-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here's a dollar, buy a sense of humor. Thanks, but, would be like taking dimes out of the tin cup of a blind guy if I were to accept

edgflyer
05-15-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
Edgflyer said:

{quote]I would have to beleive that in the heat of battle, a pilot with his adreneline pumping would definately jerk the stick a few times. Do that here once and your dead.
Originally Posted By gk11
{quote]Jerk the wheel excitedly in a race car under the wrong circumstances and you'll die too... and race car drivers have plenty of adrenline flowing... they somehow manage to avoid 'jerking the wheel while excited'...

Now even <high> performance planes shouldn't be like a car, Im not saying that. However they might be pretty sensitive out near the edge of the flight envelope and anyways it gets a lot tougher in 4.0 and good on it... I personally have made a serious hobby of hustling genuine high performance equipment around on the limit, and suspect, as a result of this experience, that an overweight, overpowered, heavily loaded WW2 bird, with pre-computer by guess and golly aero, would be quite a handful out at the ragged edge... more power to 4.0! (if the prelim info is correct that is...)[/QUOTE]



As much as somebody about to die with bullets flying over their head. Totaly different circumsances http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A race car driver isn't fighting for his life. Their are several accounts of pilots doing things in their planes that should not have been the norm and somehow they were able to pull it off without killing themselfs. Must be a margin of error designed into the plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-15-2005, 10:47 AM
PC joystick is not nearly airplane joystick.

It is easier to wobble the first one, second has backforces more than even FF.
The difference is like swinging a soda straw to swinging a hammer.

PC stick has shorter throw, little change makes more than same on real stick.

Moving PC stick does not change your position, you get no feel of G's or tilt.

If the pilot still goes spazz movements of the real stick then hey, it happened too.

Try using FILTER if you're having problems or just don't grip the stick so hard.
PC stick ... thumb and one or two fingers to practice control. And don't rest
the weight of your arm on the stick when you play.